Talk:Vlaams Belang

message: 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)
replies: text: * 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)

text: * 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)

text: * 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)
thread_title: Talk Archives / Previous discussions

message: 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)
replies: text: This can all be detailed in the Vlaams Blok article and elsewhere. Intangible 16:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to add to the next section ("Outline"). --LucVerhelst 17:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section 

message: 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)
thread_title: Outline

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

message: 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)
replies: text: I can probably live with that text now.Intangible 16:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks !--LucVerhelst 15:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Storme

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Pro Flandria

message: 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)
replies: text: Of course it is also about debating. Intangible 18:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nova Civitas

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Translation 

message: 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 :
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)
thread_title:  [[User:Intangible]]'s 29 September 06 edits 

message: 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)
replies: text: And it has been declined. Ah well... -- ➌  LucVerhelst  16:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Seems there have been no problems so far...--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Good Work 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Anke Vandermeersch]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  flemish parliament report 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Section on Electorate

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

text: Agreed, go ahead and re-add the category.--Caranorn 11:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: It's actually at CfD once again, third time in a row.--Caranorn 15:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  category:Anti-Islam sentiment, biased? yes? no? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  mult-ethnic or multi-racial?

message: 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)
thread_title:  English Translation 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Redundancy in intro sentence? 

message: 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
** 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)
thread_title:  Bot report : Found duplicate references ! 

message: 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)
thread_title: Logo

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Flemish Interest 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: "''Vlaams Belang'' (Dutch for "Flemish Interest")"