Talk:Arab European League

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Arab world (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Palestine (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Belgium (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belgium, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belgium on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Netherlands (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Organizations  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Organizations. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Islam  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Untitled[edit]

I suppressed the sentence and link about the support of the AEL towards the recent Iranian president's declarations about Israel: this is a stub of 2 small paragraphs about this organization, such precise considerations don't bring anything useful to the knowledge of the AEL, whose position towards Israel has been clear from its beginning. It reminds me of the article about the Bulgarian Turks' Movement for Rights and Freedoms where someone deemed of the utmost importance to stress and support the accusations of electoral fraud that have never been sustained by the ad hoc Electoral commission. Please note that I have no sympathy either for the AEL, Aminejad or Israel, but I'm afraid the person who added the recent text has more Zionist propagandist motivations than encyclopedic ones. --Pylambert 16:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

"such precise considerations don't bring anything useful to the knowledge of the AEL"
Of course it does. It speaks to AEL's overall political position.
I don't follow your Wikipedia navel gazing, so I have no idea what you're talking about re. the Bulgarian Turks. Not that I can see how someone insisting on stressing the importance of an accusation is in any way comparable to a small paragraph of the official position and at the bottom of an article.
"Please note that I have no sympathy either for the AEL, Aminejad or Israel, but I'm afraid the person who added the recent text has more Zionist propagandist motivations than encyclopedic ones."
You must be a physic that you are able to speak on my Zionist credentials on the basis of a small paragraph about AEL and Israel and noting whatsoever about Zionism. But please note that this is in fact an encyclopedia and neither your nor my political leanings are of interest to anyone.
I looked up AEL to see what was, and found that the article didn't include this fairly controversial part. And in the interest of adding detail and information I put it in. I'm afraid the only one pushing a political agenda is you - which is made double clear by your ready admissions of your many dislikes as well as your easy accusations of other contributers "Zionist propagandist motivations".
But if you feel like you need to be the political propaganda wing of Wikipedia, have it your way. I'm certainly not going to go into an editing war with you over such a trivial matter, espicially since I in fact did not have any political or indeed Zionist reason for the addition other than more information on AEL.
But really insisting on having the external link pointing to a non-existing page which give a 404 error, rather than my fixed link, is rather silly. Rune X2 22:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

This article does nothing but list a bill of particulars in attempt to villainize the AEL, without even giving a cursory glance at their side of the issues at hand (e.g., racist violence against Arabs across Europe). As such, it's going into the NPOV disputes category. Let someone who doesn't get all their information from FoxNews get a crack at it. --Daniel 02:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Salon article?[edit]

I note that my insertion of the Salon link was reverted by an editor on the grouds that it is not "open source." But references do not have to be; its okay to list a book as a reference for example, even though a book must be purchased. Also, the current version has some polemical claims, i.e. that the AEL has at most a dozen activists, some under 18. --Pierremenard 01:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I could not access the Salon article but I take your word for it that it contains accusations of anti-semitism, homophobia, and probably child molestation, treason and drug dealing. Still, who makes these accusations? Wouldn't it be helpful to identify the accuser rather than just say, "Some people believe the AEL is anti-semitic". --68.214.59.196 01:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Its available for free to anyone who is willing to watch an ad. Click on "Free: Read Salon Now" at the link, watch the ad, and then choose the option that takes you to the article. --Pierremenard 01:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it contains all of those accusations. But I completely agree that it is better to replace "Some people" with something more concrete. --Pierremenard 01:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, I read through the article briefly. I do not think it supports the edits claimed. The only person named in the article accusing Muslims (in general - not AEL specifically) of anti-semitism is the director off the Dutch Center for Information and Documentation on Israel, Ronny Naftaniel. The rest are anonymous claims. There are no direct accusations of homophobia against AEL. --68.214.59.196 01:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I think you don't understand what I'm trying to do. I actually tried to improve the page. I don't understand the point of reverting a page to a worse state. Just compare the wording between my version and the older version, and then consider what is most POV. I don't say that my version is perfect, but it is at least better. Just compare. RoLeoVers 01:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


Documentation offered by the Salon article[edit]

Connections to terrorists: "More recently, the Dutch faction of the League issued an invitation to Pakistani extremist Hussain Ahmed, leader of the Jamaat-e-Islami, a group with known ties to al-Qaida and the Taliban, to speak at a congress center in the Netherlands. (Dutch officials subsequently refused to grant Ahmed an entry visa, citing national security concerns; the AEL blamed "the Zionist lobby" for the decision.) The AEL has issued public approvals of 9/11, pledged solidarity with Iraqi insurgents and has challenged new French measures to ban Muslim headscarves in public schools.""

Claims that the group is connected to violence in antwerp: "Belgian lawmakers contended that Jahjah posed a danger to the community of Antwerp."

Connections to anti-semitism: "In April 2002, enraged by Israel's massive military assault into the West Bank in response to a Palestinian terrorist attack, Moroccans and AEL members smashed the storefronts of Jewish-owned shops, calling for jihad and chanting "Osama bin Laden!"

Homophobia: "In 2003, almost a year after Pim Fortuyn's assassination, the league opened a Dutch chapter; soon after, Mohammed Cheppih was appointed to head it. But earlier statements from Cheppih supporting suicide bombers in Palestine and the death penalty for homosexuals provoked such an outcry that he was forced to step down. "

Moreover, Salon.com is clearly a reliable source per WP:RS. These allegations and connections have a documented place in the article. --Pierremenard 01:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


Another comment. De Standaard, a quality Belgian newspaper called the AEL cartoons anti-semitic and negationist [1]. Now, I think that "considered by some" and "possibly" anti-semitic are quite accurate statements. RoLeoVers 02:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Why not attribute the accusation to De Standaard, then?--68.214.59.196 02:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


Edit conflict:

Connections to terrorists: "More recently, the Dutch faction of the League issued an invitation to Pakistani extremist Hussain Ahmed, leader of the Jamaat-e-Islami, a group with known ties to al-Qaida and the Taliban, to speak at a congress center in the Netherlands. (Dutch officials subsequently refused to grant Ahmed an entry visa, citing national security concerns; the AEL blamed "the Zionist lobby" for the decision.) The AEL has issued public approvals of 9/11, pledged solidarity with Iraqi insurgents and has challenged new French measures to ban Muslim headscarves in public schools.""

OK, AEL invited a speaker to the Netherlands who is accused of being a member of a group with "ties" to al-Qaeda and the Talban. Is sympathy for Iraqi resistance to occupation considered support for terrorism? Does this justify labeling AEL a supporter of terrorism? --68.214.59.196 02:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Claims that the group is connected to violence in antwerp: "Belgian lawmakers contended that Jahjah posed a danger to the community of Antwerp."

Attribute it to a Belgian lawmaker so we can know who is making the accusation. Don't make aninymous accusations. --68.214.59.196 02:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Connections to anti-semitism: "In April 2002, enraged by Israel's massive military assault into the West Bank in response to a Palestinian terrorist attack, Moroccans and AEL members smashed the storefronts of Jewish-owned shops, calling for jihad and chanting "Osama bin Laden!"

According to Salon? Was anyone convicted? Did the government accuse AEL? Sounds like the author could have provided names if it was true and not just an annymous accusation. --68.214.59.196 02:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Homophobia: "In 2003, almost a year after Pim Fortuyn's assassination, the league opened a Dutch chapter; soon after, Mohammed Cheppih was appointed to head it. But earlier statements from Cheppih supporting suicide bombers in Palestine and the death penalty for homosexuals provoked such an outcry that he was forced to step down. "

A member of AEL, before he was a member, made statements advocating Biblical punishment for homosex. Does not mean it is AEL policy and doesn't seem fair to accuse them anonymously. --68.214.59.196 02:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, Salon.com is clearly a reliable source per WP:RS. These allegations and connections have a documented place in the article. --Pierremenard 01:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Salon is a source. This particular article is short on facts. If you write clearly and provide full attribution in the Wikipedia article, like you did above and it should be OK. "According to salon article, M. Cheppih made anti homosex comments sometime before he was a member of AEL." etc. Making anonymous POV accusations is not helping the article. --68.214.59.196 02:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


Proposition[edit]

I propose the following. All possible POV should be removed. If anyone finds credible sources he may add new things. RoLeoVers 02:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Rather than revert back to old version, lets use this one and either (i) insert citations for unsourced claims or (ii) rephrase to make the article match what is in the sources better. --Pierremenard 02:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Significant support?[edit]

OK, the article says they got less than 1% of the vote and this shows their support in the Muslim community is insignificant. But don't Muslims make up only 4-7% of the population in Belgium and the Netherlands? And how many are eligible to vote? 1% of the vote translates into at least 14%-25% support among Muslims, assuming voters for this party are predominantly Muslim, which is significant enough. So I think unless we have more concrete figures, that sentence ought to be removed. --Pierremenard 02:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, there's no reason to assess the level of support in Muslim community. I just left it to the facts of the outcome. --68.214.59.196 03:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see, the percentage was far smaller than 1%. Thanks for clearing that up! --Pierremenard 03:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Revert?[edit]

Every statement was sourced in detail. This ought to have addressed the concerns you've raised. Why did you revert? --Pierremenard 02:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I cleaned up the POV. --68.214.59.196 03:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


Removal of the POV tag?[edit]

I think the page has increased enough to remove the POV tag. Anyone else that agrees? RoLeoVers 03:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Everything in the article now is cited. --Pierremenard 03:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Since I see no objections I've done it now (well, to be more accurate, as I write this, I'm about to but when you as you read it, it'll be done!) - RHeodt 16:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Introduction?[edit]

Seems to me that the introduction needs to mention the controversy surrounding this organization. Introductions are supposed to be short summaries of the article, and this one does not summarize the content. --Pierremenard 04:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Non-english language sources[edit]

Translation is required only when the material is quoted in the article. --Pierremenard 04:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

From the relevant policy page-
Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to foreign-language sources. For example, do not use a foreign-language newspaper as a source unless there is no equivalent article in an English-language newspaper.
In cases where the original source material is not in English, and there is no English-language equivalent, there is a tension between accessibility and verifiability. Readers may not be able to read source materials in other languages, and therefore require translations into English so that they can read them. Editors need this too, so they can check that the source has been used correctly.
However, translations are subject to error, whether performed by a Wikipedia editor or a professional, published translator. Readers have to be able to verify for themselves what the original material actually said, that it was published by a credible source, and that it was translated correctly.
Therefore, when the original material is in a language other than English:
Where sources are directly quoted, published translations are preferred over editors performing their own translations directly.
Where editors use their own English translation of a non-English source as a quote in an article, they should include next to it the original-language quotation, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation.
The original source in the original language should be cited, so that readers and editors can evaluate the reliability and credibility of the original source, can determine whether the original source was peer reviewed, and can verify that the article content is supported by the source material. --68.214.59.196 04:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
its not being used as a quote in the article. --Pierremenard 04:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
You are misunderstanding the policy. First of all, non-English sources should be avoided. "Readers may not be able to read source materials in other languages, and therefore require translations into English so that they can read them. Editors need this too, so they can check that the source has been used correctly." Therefore, if non-English sources are used in English Wikipedia, a translated quote from the original is needed. And the original must be provided next to the translation so that it can be verified by others later. Editing can get sloppy when editors are intent on putting their own POV into an article. That is why every edit must be documented and accurate. --68.214.59.196 04:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
It is you who are misunderstanding the policy. Non-english sources are OK if there are no english sources for the same statement. A translated quote is ONLY needed if there is a quote in the original language in the article. --Pierremenard 05:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Read the policy again carefully. English may not be your first language and the policy is not written very well. If it was true that translation is not needed unless a direct quote is made, anyone could point to a foreign language text and claim that it supportd their edits. Translation is always needed. read these paragraphs especially carefully:
In cases where the original source material is not in English, and there is no English-language equivalent, there is a tension between accessibility and verifiability. Readers may not be able to read source materials in other languages, and therefore require translations into English so that they can read them. Editors need this too, so they can check that the source has been used correctly.
However, translations are subject to error, whether performed by a Wikipedia editor or a professional, published translator. Readers have to be able to verify for themselves what the original material actually said, that it was published by a credible source, and that it was translated correctly. --68.214.59.196 05:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
And then it goes on only to require direct translations when the material is used as a quote. Anyway, the issue is moot now as theres a translation below. --Pierremenard 05:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Translation[edit]

The AEL of Abou Jahjah that is also active in the Netherlands heavely resists the plans of the Flemish green party Agalev to place posters of islamic dressed homosexual couples in the migrant parts of Antwerp. In a declaration, AEL calls this a "ridiculous, bad taste and provocing". The organization demands apologies of Agalev. If Agalev doesn't apologize, AEL will take further actions.

According to president Azzuz of AEL-Belgium the Qu'ran explicitly forbids homosexuality. "You cannot be a muslim and being homosexual and you can't be muslim and be an acoholic, according to Azzuz Thursday. "People may be gay, but they may not call themselves muslim then. We don't force anyone to be muslim, but islamic homosexuals don't exist, whatever a small group of alleged islamic homosexuals say. What Agalev now does, is a direct insult for our faith.

Azzuz doesn't want to say what further action he could take. "If they learn their lesson, they will see how we will react." According to the president of AEL-Belgium Agalev wants - that gained in the past a lot of votes from naturalized immigrants and also had a lot of migrant representatives in parliament - to gain votes after the election defeat in May. The party then lost all her seats in the Chamber. Azzuz: "Don't let them do stunts that hurts us."

Secretary Caals of Agalev-Antwerp doesn't say that it is yet decided to place the posters. "That's what the president of the youth organization, who is muslim and homosexual himself, wants to do. He wants to tackle the taboo that currently exists in Islam world and sees the posters as the best possibility, as something that is a little bit shocking. "Within the party we will keep talking. But we really want to do something about this taboo." Caals thinks the reaction of AEL happened "too soon". AEL plans a protest march in Brussel against the interdiction for muslim girls to wear head scarfs in the capital [Brussels] in different schools.

[Source: de Telegraaf 2003-09-09]

Salon accuracy[edit]

salon claims the AEL approved of the 9/11 attacks but the AEL's own website refers to the 9/11 attacks as "horrifying" attack. So it does not appear to be approving of it. That's why I say the Salon quote is an allegation. [2] --68.214.59.196 04:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Salon says the AEL HAS made a statement approving the 9/11 attacks. This does not mean that every statement on the subject the AEL makes will be approving. Salon is a reliable source as outlined in WP:RS, and its findings ought to be reported as facts in the article. --Pierremenard 04:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
So why do you choose to include only the negative? --68.214.59.196 05:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
No one prevents you to include the positive! So just start adding, my friend! :-) RoLeoVers 05:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
If you want, add the positive to it, but Salon is acceptable as a source, and what it reports is not "alleged." --Pierremenard 05:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Salon is not a source without its POV biases, and it certainly had a number of ideological axes to grind (including, most pertinently, a willingness to tar and feather any and all Arab and Islamic peoples as barbarians, and a totally uncritical way of looking at the Israel-Palestine conflict).
Accepting their claims as the total truth is certainly problematic; it is made even more so when there isn't a way to actually check the veracity of the claim. Not being able to read the article, because of their damned clickthrough ads, I would personally appreciate if someone could post the section of the article in question. For the time being, "Salon claims. . ." is certainly the NPOV way to go. --Daniel 05:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree, though I'd prefer "Salon reports..." given the nature of Salon. I pasted the relevant section above under "Documentation offered by the Salon article." --Pierremenard 05:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

POV editing[edit]

There are many words from AEL's own website that could be used to describe the group [3] but where do some editors prefer to find their material? In Israeli and homosex websites! I think that is why the article is so POV and slanted. --68.214.59.196 04:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Please be more specific regarding where the article is not WP:NPOV. General statements like these don't make it very much easier to improve the article. Jacoplane 07:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I'll add that its not at all surprising that anti-semitism is chronicled in Israeli websites. --Pierremenard 08:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Cartoons[edit]

Recently, a vote on the Muhammad cartoons talk page strongly favored a site design showing the cartoon page as an inline image in that entry (unfortunately, in somewhat poor resolution). Only a link to the AEL cartoons is currently provided, which are not currently accessible. If anyone can find these cartoons intact, I think that this entry should provide a similar fair use copy (at least) of the AEL cartoons to be fully informative and to emphasize Wikipedia's neutrality in its pursuit of the facts. Mike Serfas 21:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


Two cartoons are here and a higher res version of one of them is [4]. Are you sure that inserting these cartoons into the article does not violate copyright laws? --Pierremenard 08:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Jewish organizations[edit]

Someone does not like the term "jewish organizations" used in this sentence in the article: "A Dutch Jewish organization "Center for Information and Documentation Israel" filed a formal complaint in Amsterdam against the AEL following the publication of the cartoons.[5]" The link is from European Jewish Press and describes the Center for Information and Documentation Israel as a Jewish organization in the first line of the article. But our objectionable editor says that he is smarter than this source and there is no such thing as a Jewish organization. He could Google the term and see that there are many many many examples of Jewish organizations: [6] But he still thinks he is smarter than everyone else. What to do with such a stubborn editor?--68.211.66.29 02:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Its different if an organization self-identifies as a Jewish organization. In this case, I'll accept that the usage of the term is legitemate. Other than that, the term ought not to be used, even if a source uses it. If you like, you can say "which source X labels a Jewish organization." On second thought, this would be sort of unencyclopedic. Whats your objection against "pro-Israel"? -- Pierremenard 02:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
They are a Jewish pro-Israel organization. Why bother to try to hide their identity? --68.211.66.29 02:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
What does it mean to say that an organization is a Jewish organization? -- Pierremenard 02:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I am not so sure if it is a Jewish organization. It is definitely pro-Israel. But saying it is Jewish is wrong in two ways. First, Christians can support CIDI and Christians work for the the CIDI. Second, antizionist Jews are disgusted when people say the pro-Apartheid CIDI piece of shit is 'Jewish'. Both CIDI and anti-CIDI have no problem in identifying it as "pro-Israel".
-- ActiveSelective 06:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

racism?![edit]

The VB party has never been sued for this. Three of its vzbs were found to be incontempt with the 1981 racism and xenophobia law. That's all there is to say. Intangible 18:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It's even official:
ActiveSelective 18:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
It is not official. The party Vlaams Blok has never been to court, although 3 vzws aligned with it have. The Ghent Court of Appeals cannot handle political cases. Intangible 19:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Whether it's official or not is irrelevant. Wikipedia is about verifiability. I'm sure you believe Vlaams Blok wasn't racist, I'm also sure a lot of others think otherwise. And I'm sure that we'll never be able to reach an agreement about the "truth".
So let's stick to Wikipedia policy : verifiability. We have several verifiable sources, among which the very reputable BBC, that say that the Vlaams Blok was convicted as being racist. That's enough for it to be entered in Wikipedia. --LucVerhelst 19:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
You're right, if things are the way you like them and you find a handy reference, you can include tham, even if you're not sure if it's true yourself. And WITHOUT ACCUSING YOU OF THE OPPOSITE (just to avoid confusion), I assume it's a coincidence you turn up here for the first time now. 1652186 20:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Huh ? Please go through this article's history, will you ? [7]
I've done quite some cleaning work between 28 May and 1 June. Not a first visit for me.--LucVerhelst 20:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
From [8]: "Het Vlaams Blok werd zelf niet veroordeeld om de eenvoudige reden dat de klacht die geleid heeft tot de veroordeling uitsluitend gericht was tegen de drie vzw’s en niet tegen het Vlaams Blok." Intangible 20:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
You know as well as I do that there is a difference between the legal facts and what this implies in the real world.
If you want to go this way, we'll have to delete the Vlaams Belang page : there is no legal person called "Vlaams Belang". For matters of law, in Belgium political parties have no legal personality, they don't exist if you look at it purely from the legal point of view. So if one wants to start a trial against a party, because the party is racist, the only valid legal way to file a complaint is through the existing legal persons, the foundations, and/or the natural persons that constitute the party.
So, formally, legally, off course the party wasn't convicted, but for every means and purpose, in real life it has. Which is why a reputable source like the BBC (and many others), wrote that the court convicted the party. --LucVerhelst 21:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
This is nonsense. They could as well have tried to remove the immunity of the Vlaams Blok politicians and try them as well. Intangible 21:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
They could have tried more, no doubt, but the point is -as I understand- what is left of the VB without it's constituent parts? If it is virtually nothing, than the conviction of the constituent parts (VZWs) is practically the conviction of the VB. As such it was also explained by the VB leaders themselves.
Apart from a legalistic debate, the history of the Party show leaders in Holocaust denial, attacks on anti-racists, members/sympathizers killing migrants, leaders visiting 'blood and honour' (nazi's) festivities, international cooperation with neonazi's. There is no doubt this party is also unofficially racist. ActiveSelective 21:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Without it's constituent parts? No VB politician has been to court... Intangible 07:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I fully agree with you, they should have been brought to court too!
But the point here is: without the VZWs the VB is nothing. Only in purely legal terms, in one's own mind, one can try to maintain a strict devide between them, but not in reality. Even the VB leaders themselves could not, however much they wished to do so. So, after the ruling, it was quite a clever political tactic of them not to push forward without their VZWs because their weaknesses would have become exposed. For appearences it was a clever tactic to 'officially' disband themselves and 'start all over' (also only legally and also never practically). It allowed them to play the role of the poor misunderstood innocent little school boy (while loading his gun so it could go hunting pregnant Malinese nannies). ActiveSelective 07:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

We can't go around the facts, Vlaams Blok has been condemned for racism (even though they had to change the law to get this done), but going around advertising this each time the name Vlaams Blok appears (even where irrelevant) is considered POV by me. 1652186 19:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I see your point.
In this particular case, I do think it is a necessary part of the context.
(and just to asure you, I wasn't 'advertising' it anywhere else, by the way) ActiveSelective 19:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying you are, but some others try to do so. And if you really want to include it here, I think it should go with a note about the controversy around the conviction to be NPOV. 1652186 19:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Hm. I was trying to, but I can't find no mention of a law change. Also not on the Vlaams Blok page. ActiveSelective 21:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)