Talk:Vlaams Belang

Please add new discussions to the bottom of the page !

Archives

1 2 3

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." -- Template:Nl icon "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.

Template:Nl icon "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.

¹Template:Nl icon 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)

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)

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)

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)