Talk:Vlaams Belang/Archive 1

Archives

1 2 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Do not edit this page. These discussions are now archived for viewing only.

---

Does anybody know what policy wikipedia has on parties with a new name:

• Two separate pages, Vlaams Blok and Vlaams Belang
• Rename the Vlaams Blok page to Vlaams Belang, and use a redirect from the old name to the new name?

p.s. Agalev redirects to Groen!, PVV and CVP are disambig pages leading to respectively Flemish Liberals and Democrats and Christen-Democratisch en Vlaams. SP goes over Socialist Party to Socialistische Partij - Anders.

Donar Reiskoffer 14:51, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comment. In contrast with what Agalev did, I think the case of the Vlaams Blok/Vlaams Belang is slightly different. Strictly speaking, the Vlaams Blok didn't change its name. Rather the Vlaams Blok was dissolved and a new party, the Vlaams Belang, was created. Otherwise the party with the new name would still be considered contravening the anti-discrimination law, i.e. it would still be considered racist under the law. On the other hand, since the party members are the same, the party is the same. That's a heck of a question...

I posted a RFC on this. Comments welcome. --Edcolins 21:08, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

I'd say use the same page. See for example Kach and Kahane Chai — a single page for three parties, the original Kach and both its factions after its split (racism issues might be comparable, but I know nothing about Belgian politics). Gady 21:22, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

After some looking around, I would also prefer to use one page, the difference in between Vlaams Blok and Vlaams Belang is not bigger than between PVV and VLD (which was also a new party and not a mere name change. On the Dutch wikipedia, there are howevere two pages: nl:Vlaams Blok and nl:Vlaams Belang. So perhaps we should first listen to some more opinions before we decide to merge or not to merge. Donar Reiskoffer 07:25, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree with using one page (unless the combined article gets too big). In my opinion, Vlaams Blok and Vlaams Belang are de facto the same party, even though legally they are different. -- Jitse Niesen 12:52, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't know... I did, perhaps too hastily, the merge of Vlaams Belang and Vlaams Blok on the french-sp wikipedia. Because it's almost the same party with a historical continuity (which would be lost in the split) and because the description of the Vlaams Blok as an extreme-right vlamingant party essentially still applies to Vlaams Belang. But now I'm less sure that fusion is "the" best solution. --FvdP 23:08, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Flemish Interest (Vlaams Belang) is a new party

Each neutral observer will agree that a new party was founded. But perhaps the French-speaking Walloons are less neutral, because they get 16 billion dollar each year out of financial transfers from Flanders to Wallonia?

Try to say that in front of me, and you'll get a BLOW. --FvdP 22:28, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC) (But all that you deserve is that I ignore you from now on. You, but not your edits if I think they're not suited to Wikipedia, mind you.)

One of the reasons for this is that there are generalised and systematic abuses in social welfare programmes in Wallonia. That this major topic of Vlaams Belang propaganda is not even mentioned, proves that the French article at Wikipedia is biased. At any event, it seems to have been written by somebody with Belgian French-speaking roots, who has simply made a summary of what he has read in the biased French-speaking press.

And France? After a possible split-up of Belgium, they want to annex Brussels + a corridor.

And don’t forget that this has been a kind of political murder affair. Dead is dead. Respect for the death please!

In my (strictly personal) opinion the formal change into a new party came one week before Vlaams Belang was founded, when the new party program was proclaimed, but of course this difference of one week is not important. It should be seen in the perspective of the inevitable conviction that was coming. See at: http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/54/

By the way, even the Flemish quality newspaper de Standaard considers that there is a rift with the past, see at: http://www.standaard.be/nieuws/binnenland/index.asp?articleID=GFVA1SF9

Title: Vlaams Blok ruilt ,,Grondbeginselen voor lichtere ,,Beginselverklaring,,. Vaarwel aan het fascisme.

Van onze redacteur

BRUSSEL - Met zijn nieuwe beginselverklaring neemt het Vlaams Blok wat afstand van zijn extreem-rechtse ideologie. 'De Standaard' vergeleek de Grondbeginselen uit 1977 met de Beginselverklaring die vandaag door de partij wordt goedgekeurd.

…

06/11/2004 Bart Brinckman

©Copyright De Standaard

Johan --Jvb

Flanders 11/2004

--FvdP 22:27, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC) removed rant here about "The financial transfers from Flanders to Wallonia":

• here is not the place to discuss Belgian politics
• Just to answer those would have read or intend to read the removedrant: transfers are mostly a question of point of view. They undoubtly exist, but are a normal thing is a country with a common social security system. The question whether they are excessive or not is debated.

The interested reader can consult my so-called “rant” by clicking above on “history” and then choosing November 26, 2004. You should understand that I don’t intend to overload the Wikipedia server by playing a daily Copy & Paste game with his lordship Mr. “Freethought”.

Johan - Flanders in Belgium --Jvb – 11/2004.

--FvdP 22:27, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The fact that the honourable contributor to Wikipedia intends to give me a blow only reflects the “distinctive” character of the emotional sphere in which important issues cannot be discussed in Belgium.

Your insinuation that my view comes mainly from financial considerations is not going to do any good for the emotional sphere of any discussion. It's just too easy then, dude, to blame me of being emotional. I just HATE IT when people pretend they know why I'm holding my view -- and, o surprise, their always "know" the worst possible reason. You just can't discuss things this way. --FvdP 18:06, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A little nuance. Don’t attribute things to my pen that I haven’t written. You should interpret it as follows: I happen to read on a regularly base the French-speaking press and I have observed that what you write is a very good and intelligent summary of all the prejudices and distortions you are fed with on a daily base.

Great. You of course, are free of any prejudice and distortion ? --FvdP

I am objective, because I am talking about objective numbers. In my November 26, 2004 text (censored by you) the transfers from Flanders to Wallonia are evaluated at 15 BILLION DOLLARS EACH YEAR and these numbers are the result of scientific university research. Whatever can be more objective? Johan – Flanders - --Jvb – December 1, 2004.

"Scientific studies" can be distorted, too. (And sometimes outright manipulated.) The way they are done is never absolutely objective. And, strangely, there is a consistent difference in this matter between "scientific studies" done by Flemish universities and "scientific studies" done by french-speaking universities. Now, how will you "objectively" decide the Flemush ones are the most objective ? --FvdP 21:55, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please let me know ( I have my doubts you can give them) those studies from Belgian French-speaking universities that prove the opposite, namely that there are no big financial transfers from Flanders to Wallonia. I promise you that they will get a place on the front-page of all major Flemish newspapers, magazines and even on television. In fact if they would exist, this would be marvellous, then the discussion can finally start. Johan --Jvb – 12/2004

But more fundamentally. There are transfers from Flanders to Wallonia and Vlaams Belang depicts them as “theft” instead of solidarity. And the French-speaking contributor to Wikipedia only uses the euphemism “independence” for “abolishing the transfers”, isn’t it? I hope you won’t be angry about this remark.

I don't understand what you're trying to insinuate here. AFAIR, I spoke neither of independence nor of abolishing the transfers. Imagining things again, are you ? --FvdP

Excerpt from your text in French: Programme. Le Vlaams Blok milite principalement contre les étrangers et pour L'INDEPENDANCE de la Flandre. You even go on by noticing that in enclave Brussels, Flemish Interest doesn’t speak about independence. That you don’t (want to) speak about the 15 billion dollars that are poored out each year into the Walloon bottomless barrel and that the Flemish no longer believe in the fairy tales that something will change is indeed not mentioned by you, but that’s just what Flemish Interest is telling US, because in a globalised world the Flemish economy can no longer support this. The latest Flemish Interest booklet they dropped in each Flemish mailbox was about nothing else.

NOW PLEASE, NOTE: I AM NOT FLEMISH. I AM NOT OBSESSED BY THESE TRANSFERS TO THE POINT THAT I THINK ABOUT THEM EVERY SECOND OF MY LIFE. I have not studied VB's program in depth, either. So you should not interpret this omission as a deliberate act of hiding. --FvdP

The transfers to French-speaking Belgium are very important. The Parti Socialiste (PS) keeps half of Wallonia in a kind of unemployment slavery with their client serving system and breeds the Walloons to a people of, I hesitate to say this out of diffidence, “parasites” instead of making an industrious an proud people out of it. But unfortunately for the PS, these transfers must also be paid by someone and this increases the salary cost in Flanders to such an extend that it becomes unbearable. By the way, did you notice that meanwhile a certain Jean–Marie Dedecker in VLD party uses approximately the same language. Don’t say that he is a populist too! I think the "problem" for the Parti Socialiste is growing fast. Johan --Jvb – 12/2004

Now to the point: VB, as far as I know, also wants Flanders to be independent (what else does "Belgie barst" mean ???) (or has the Vl Belang changed his mind on this ? I bet it hasn't.) When I write that the VB militates for Flanders independence, I mean that the VB militates for Flanders independence. No more no less. See previous point. --FvdP

Don’t forget to mention that some lines lower in your text, you explain in French the factors of Flemish Interest’s success, they being…”too simple” in explaining complicated matters. Indeed YOUR text is far too simple. Johan --Jvb – 12/2004

So it was indeed not me who wrote about independence. Are you talking to me or to "The" Abstract French-Speaking Wikipedian ? As for the rest... your POV is your POV and not the subject of this discussion. --FvdP 20:37, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The phrasing «  The Abstract French-Speaking Wikipedian” is simply a style figure. I am taking symbolically a little bit of distance to dodge your blow. But perhaps does your lordship not allow the little Flemish peasants to use style figures? So in fact, first you delete my text and now you are saying in which style I must write. That reminds me of the legal framework constructed by the Belgian Establishment to make Flemish Interest mouth-death.

Oh you poor flemish boy... eternal victim... but I don't see why I should be more open to your "irony" (which I find at times quite offensive) than you are open to my suggestion of a blow. --FvdP 21:55, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That’s just the problem. You guys give blows or try to ban Belgium’s biggest party, muzzle free speech... No wonder you can’t appreciate my little “irony”. By the way, I am no boy. Hell, you betrayed yourself once again! Johan --Jvb – 12/2004

But do you insist on discussing my style? Then you will excuse me to discuss your style too. What you did above is a much bigger trick. Indeed, you write “I did, perhaps too hastily, the merge of Vlaams Belang and Vlaams Blok on the french-sp wikipedia”…, DOING in fact the opposite of what you are INSINUATING. At the same time even explaining why the merge should be done. This is typically the kind of ambiguity in behaviour (words versus deeds) Flemish seem to discern among much of their French-speaking compatriots. I hope of course that this is only a Flemish prejudice! But dude, why not expressing in a more direct way your secret desire/hope to merge?

That's not a trick. Sincerely. I did the merge, then had doubts. Then you came with your "arguments" -- part of them were several paragraphs on money transfers, totally unrelated to the mergeing discussion as far as I can see. The other arguments were all on the side of the dis-merge, and begin with a sentence I can't accept: "Each neutral observer will agree that a new party was founded." (do you know what "neutrality" means ?) So no wonder I tried to push forward arguments the other way round. Now please: do not try to second-guess the motives for my behaviour. That's the recipe for(1) making mistakes and (2) envenimating the discussion. Remember: my suggestion of a blow stemmed from precisely that: your writing than the transfers were the unique (and of course hidden) reason for Walloons to oppose Flemish views. That's an interesting prejudice to have, when one wants to condemn Walloons or their arguments. Not when one wants to understand them. (Note: I'm not Walloon either, but felt included among them by your "argument".) --FvdP

My answer to this post is incorporated in the text at the end of chapter “Flemish Interest (Vlaams Belang) is NOT a new party”. Johan – Flanders in Belgium – --Jvb – 12/2004.

And is what I am writing only my personal view? On the contrary. I am taking great pains to explain you the points of view of Flemish Interest party such as they are dropped with leaflets and booklets in my mailbox at home. Flemish Interest always writes about the useless and unfair transfers to Wallonia (and since the nineties also to Brussels) in opposition to what you write: the Flemish want their independence… because they are xenophobe. The latter for the very reason that no other explanation is mentioned in your text, insinuating at the same time that the fault lays in Flanders. Johan – Flanders - --Jvb – December 1, 2004.

Again, I DID NOT write "the Flemish want their independence… because they are xenophobe". You are fooling yourself believing that I think that way. I wrote: the VB is a party with a racist program (did I even write "xenophobic" ?) and the VB wants Flemish independence. I did not even make a link between the two and I did surely not talk about "the Flemish" in general. To be clear: I do not believe this is true of Flemish people in general. --FvdP

For “xenophobe”, see chapter “Naissance du Vlaams Belang” at the French Wikipedia. I am not responsible for the Latin idiocy of the Belgian penal code, which only convicts so-called non-profit organisations close to a political party (Flemish Block) to kill judicially the same political party, by the way, one that has NEVER done any violence. But if some judge shoots the heart, longs and brain out of a body, then indeed it is death. Amen. And then you continue to write: “Le parti change donc de nom “. The party thus (only) changes its name. In my view that’s another way to maintain the former “because”. For the rest I just repeat that by omitting the “transfers”, you give the impression that Flemish Interest wants independence for Flanders… because they are xenophobe (a kind of autism?). Insinuating at the same time that the fault lays in Flanders. I only agree on one point with you: you didn’t say explicitely that all “Flemish” are xenophobe. But your discourse is for the rest very close to that of the FDF party, a party that is integrated in the broader MR party (conservative - 25% or so in French-speaking Belgium). And the FDF representatives don’t always make the difference between Flemish Interest and the Flemish as far as xenophobia is concerned. Johan – Flanders in Belgium – --Jvb – 12/2004

To note. After the recent regional elections, Vlaams Blok (its legal successor now being Vlaams Belang) was (formally) invited by now Flemish minister-president Yves Leterme for coalition talks. Vlaams Blok came with an immense list of demands. Then Leterme asked: “how do you intend to finance this?”. Vlaams Belang answered: with the transfers to Wallonia. Then the discussion was over, because Mr. Leterme interpreted this as that they were looking for a conflict to blow up Belgium.

Johan - --Jvb – Flanders

11/2004

P.S.: Hereafter you find a more detailed article out of the newspaper de Standaard that gives a better understanding how the general abuses in social welfare in Wallonia are systematically organised ( the client serving system of the Parti Socialiste). It was written by the correspondent of the Dutch NRC Handelsblad, a certainly neutral observer.

Just a note. Don't eat all these lies raw, when they confort so easily your prejudices. The last scandal about excessive spenditure in a hospital I heard of, occurred in Flanders. --FvdP 20:37, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for starting to speak about the public sickness insurance. This is of course more than about only one hospital. Don’t forget that we are speaking here about MACRO numbers and not about some exception that can only confirm the general rule. So you are simply a bad loser. In fact it would be more appropriate to establish a «  cordon sanitaire » around the Parti Socialiste (the Walloon political Maffia), the one who causes the grief, than around a Flemish party that complains about the abuses. Mr. Coveliers of the Flemish liberal VLD already made the parallel with the Parti Socialiste. Johan – Flanders - December 1, 2004.

But how can you be so sure it's "only one hospital" and "some exception" ? Studies have shown that the differences in costs between Walloon and Flemish hospitals were justified by objective differences between the health state of their respective "clients". Of course, these were perhaps walloon studies... But then yours are flemish studies... --FvdP

How then can you explain that Belgian public health minister Demotte waited until the Flemish threatened to scission the public sickness insurance, to announce that hospitals (everywhere in Belgium) will get henceforth “the same money” for the “same” treatment, because up to now the same treatments in Wallonia cost as an average up to a multitude from those in Flanders. To see afterwards, whether this new measures will change something on the ground, of course.

Another explanation for the differences in expenses between French-speakers and the Dutch-speaking Flemings in the public sickness insurance is “cultural”. If a French-Speaker (such as in other Latin countries) starts with asking several expert opinions for a simple sickness and the insurance system allows this, instead of a Fleming who as an average doesn’t go to a specialist for such things but right to his family doctor and already starts by saying in advance for instance: “I have bronchitis, give me antibiotics”. In that way, of course, you have another reason why the French-speaking expense pattern makes the Belgian public sickness insurance impossible dear in a global world with easy comparison of salary cost.

On thing is sure. The Flemish pay. They have the right to know that the money is not spoiled. Especially when there is no surplus any more. The French-speakers don’t seem to understand this. Early in December 2004 on the Belgian French-speaking television during a political discussion program on Sunday, it was said that Flemish remarks about “independence” and Walloon “financial spending extravagance” in fact are nothing else than “racism” too. Everything the Walloons don’t like is catalogued as “racism” thus, of course under the though Belgian anti-hate laws so that punishment is possible. Very pity.

In fact the underlying problem is that those who haven’t worked for the money, also don’t grasp its value. It’s such as with little children. And if that nasty French-speaking child has a weapon called “Thought Police” in its hand, it won’t hesitate to use it when it wants to have the last word…

Johan - Flanders --Jvb – 12/2004

REPORTAGE. Borinage blues - Portret van een gemeenschap die de schaamte voorbij is

Caroline de Gruyter 12/05/2001.See at (paying): http://www.standaard.be/archief/zoeken/DetailNew.asp?full=0&articleID=DST12052001_019&trefwoord=borinage+gemeenschap&section=&subsection=&datum1=&datum2=&wat=1&Fulltref=0&page=1&trefwoord2=&oldtrefwoord2=

Flemish Interest (Vlaams Belang) is NOT a new party

According to the latest news, I think we should consider 'Flemish Interest' to be the same party as 'Flemish Block'. As both the party themself and the Flemish parliament see it that way. I quote from De tijd (Dutch newspaper)

Voorzitter Frank Vanhecke en fractieleider Filip Dewinter stuurden afgelopen vrijdag een brief naar de voorzitter van het Vlaams Parlement, Norbert De Batselier. Daarin stelden ze dat het Vlaams Belang inderdaad dezelfde partij is als het Vlaams Blok. Op basis van die brief ging het uitgebreid bureau van het Vlaams Parlement er maandag unaniem van uit dat het Vlaams Belang geen nieuwe partij is.

Translation in English: President Frank Vanhecke and fraction leader Filip Dewinter did send last friday a letter to the president of the Flemish Parliament, Norbert De Batselier. In this letter they pose that the Flemish Interest is indeed the same party as the Flemish block. On the basis of this letter, the extented bureau of the Flemish Parliament assumed unanimously that Flemish Interest is no new party.

I propose hence to merge Flemish Interest and Flemish Block, like has been done with other Belgian parties that changed their name.

Donar Reiskoffer 14:13, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The issue is more complicated than this. The bureau of the Flemish parliament HAD NO OTHER CHOICE. Why? They did not want to withdraw Flemish Interest’s public subventions and this only for political reasons. Otherwise, without public financing, the party would have been seen too much as a scapegoat by the electorate. Indeed, the Flemish parliament's rule book says that to a new party subventions can only be given IF THEY HAVE FIRST TAKEN PART IN NEW ELECTIONS, which would obviously not have been the case if it was another new party (elections just passed).

They had the other choice; they just lacked the courage (or the folly) to do it. And since there is no way to justify their decision if one does not accept the idea that VBlok = VBelang, the consequence is that they asserted than VBlok = VBelang. --FvdP

By the way, the translated excerpt from the article above out of the newspaper de Tijd seems rather to be the too hasty conclusion of the journalist who confused the Flemish parliament decision with Flemish Interest’s letter of explanation to the Flemish parliament's bureau. More relevant to me seems the text with which the article starts, see at:

http://www.tijd.be/nieuws/artikel.asp?Id=1492541

In Dutch: ,,Het Vlaams Belang is de rechtsopvolger en de politieke erfgenaam van het Vlaams Blok.

In English: “Flemish Interest is the legal successor and the political heir of Flemish Blok

The latter has also always been the point of view Flemish Interest has always defended on each platform (radio, television…).

This argumentation is confirmed by an analogue article in the quality newspaper de Standaard (without the former hasty conclusion):

See at: http://www.standaard.be/nieuws/binnenland/index.asp?ArticleID=DMF29112004_014&Snel=1

Indeed, if one does not accept the difference between “legal successor and the political heir” and “the same party” , it will NEVER be possible to found a new party. Remember, in Belgium there is ONLY state financing (except from private donations up to 125 EUR).

Or: "it will be impossible to disguise an old party as a new one" ? Founding a new party is easy... when it's clearly new. Not the case here. --FvdP

The politicians of Flemish Block were forced to give up their old party by Belgian “Justice”. But you should notice that they still had their political rights as individuals. So why not as free men and women and without a criminal record, even in Belgium, come together and found a new party, called Flemish Interest? That they had the money (2 million dollars) to do so, is only proof that they can hold money. Johan --Jvb – 12/2004

More important is the so-called “cordon sanitaire”, the official and written agreement of all other parties not to cooperate with Flemish Block. For Flemish Interest this has not been signed. This proves that it is a much different party

That proves nothing, nothing at all. First, did they have the time to sign such a thing; they may well sign it tomorrow. Second, they may think Vlaams Belang is different: even then, they may be wrong. --FvdP 18:06, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I meanwhile have been informed that CD&V and VLD have refused to sign a “cordon sanitaire agreement" as far as Flemish Interest is concerned, but I was reluctant to write this for the simple reason that I have no confirmation…

Another argumentation that this is a new party, except from the non-existence of a new cordon sanitaire, could be that if it was the same party, then all members and collaborators would be members of a “criminal” organisation (under Belgian law) and could be fined and even be sent to prison. Up to now, I haven’t seen manoeuvres in that direction.

Johan --Jvb – 11/2004

Back to the initial question, the question is: is Vlaams Belang so different from the Vlaams Blok as too deserve a new article in Wikipedia ? You have not convinced me it is/does. The same people, probably about the same electors, almost the same program (didn't the Vlaams Blok "tame" its electoral program a few weeks or days before its dissolution ?). The only things that change are legalese. Admittedly important on a judiciary point of view. But on Wikipedia ? --FvdP 20:37, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The new Flemish Interest party program is that of a modern conservative party. New people were introduced: Verstrepen, Morel. Old people disappeared: Dillen. The Flemish people have had years to contemplate what is going on and a million voters gave their consent. The Flemish don’t live in catastrophic circumstances such as in the thirties of last century that can cloud their minds. I hope you don’t think they are all simple minded. You even don’t have the right to think that unless you can prove the opposite. The other political parties and their professional politicians (at least CD&V and VLD) refuse to sign a new cordon sanitaire agreement. In Austria out of a normal liberal party came a far-right one and in Flanders just the opposite happened.

This could be seen as pure question of opportunity. VB has slightly cleaned-up its program; the "cordon sanitaire" becomes harder and harder to hold, for instance in Antwerpen; several people in the other parties are more and more inclined to break it, or less inclined to maintain it at all costs. The dissolution-(re?)creation of VB is a good opportunity for these people to break the cordon without triggering outcries. Regardless of whether these people think the VB is really different... --FvdP

Perhaps the other parties think Flemish Interest has already changed years ago, but the process was postponed by Belgian “Justice”. Johan --Jvb – 12/2004

But your question seems to be, apart from the legal fact of the founding of a new party: what did change the very second before, compared to the second after this founding? That’s in fact discussing the meaning of “transition rites”. When people get married, what changes? The founding of the new Flemish Interest party is the official transition at the end of a long process that was already going on for years.

This remains to be proved. Wait and see... But frankly, given the moment at which this name changes occurred, it could just as well be no more than a trick to escape Belgian justice... --FvdP

But perhaps you want to reverse the onus of proof such as with the Belgian anti-discrimination law ? Sorry, but this cancer is only Belgian. Wikipedia on the contrary is international. This must be respected. Johan – Flanders --Jvb – December 1, 2004.

This last answer of yours started on a nice, rational tone. Why do you have to end it with, again, insinuations on my inner motives ? --FvdP 21:55, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Flemish Block (successor Flemish Interest) has been convicted by Belgian “criminal” laws solely on the charge of having wrong "intentions". But perhaps you would ask, isn’t there a rancid smell in Flemish society that must be punished? No more than elsewhere. But the cure is even worse than the illness. Core business of the Thought Police (Agency for Equal Rights – Centrum voor Gelijkheid van Kansen) is to eliminate and intimidate political opponents, especially Flemish conservatives. These laws have their origin in French-speaking Belgium (Wallonia principally) and were implemented (exported to Flanders) with the help of the Flemish left (25% in Flanders). But the big money goes in the other direction. And Flemish conservatives may under such circumstances not be suspicious about possible wrong intentions??? Why not export the Walloon Thought Police to your Arab friends in Palestine and investigate the Islam rant in the Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem? Then at least there would be no presumption of self-interest. Johan --Jvb – 12/2004

Yeah... I was actually trying to create an FDF aisle in Ramallah... and trying to undermine Flanders with the help of the PS and the PTB... I'm outguessed ! You're a genius ! :-/ --FvdP 20:52, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Still some more explanation. In February 2001, Claude Eerdekens, the parliamentary leader of Belgian French-speaker’s Parti Socialiste declared in Parliament that 99% of the immigrants in Brussels—historically a Dutch-speaking town—filed their naturalisation papers in French. "We do more to turn Brussels into a Francophone city than the Flemings can ever do to prevent it," he boasted.

But the apprentice-wizard made a “little” error. Indeed, What does Eurostat (urbanaudit) write about the quality of life in European cities?

London has most of the inhabitants, Athens most of the hours sun, Brussels most of the unemployed and murders, Lisbon most of the doctors, Copenhagen most of the car thefts and Dublin most of the heart attacks.

In London the yearly probability to get murdered is 3/100.000, but In Brussels it is 10/100.000. I suppose for the other crimes it is proportional. I mean on the ground, as there are strong indications that crime statistics are manipulated in Belgium, except for the murders of course. Dead is dead.

More detailed information at: http://www.urbanaudit.org

Also to note, the title of the article in the Flemish newspaper de Standaard (21/10/2004) was: “London more sunny than Brussels.” This seems to be an extreme form of understatement to me. I suppose the newspaper indeed didn’t like to write about the Belgian Establishment’s immigration/import policy of north-African Arabs to Brussels, to counter the global Flemish demographical majority in Belgium. For those who don’t know Belgium, the Belgian Establishment is principally composed out of Stalinist Wallonia + the little Flemish left, who have a majority together. They are afraid of Flemish Interest conservative party. Johan -Flanders in Belgium- --Jvb – 12/2004

I hesitate to get involved in a fairly acrimonious environment... but since the history and politics of the Vlaams Blok is very important to understanding Vlaams Belang (it's not a blank slate new party), I'd say one page until there's more to be said about whether the new party actually develops differently. But as long as the parties' relationship is made clear, separate articles would be OK too. Rd232 18:02, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree, 100%. --FvdP 18:49, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In fact the big internal change already took place let’s say about three years ago. But by that time it already became clear that the Belgian Establishment would try to erase them in court and so whether they liked it or not, they had to wait for the final conviction for “racism” to change officially, the real reason being that they advocate independence. Much of what is said about Flemish Interest is just black propaganda and that even judges are involved doesn’t change anything.

Don’t forget that Flemish Interest is Belgium’s biggest party and that the whole of the re-founding operation had a cost of two million dollars. To change twice would have been too expensive.

But as long as Belgium exists, my interlocutor will never admit that Flemish Interest is different. Afterwards he won’t be interested any more.

Johan – Flanders – --Jvb – 12/2004.

I'm not interested because this discussion is turning round in circles, you bringing more and more of Vlaams Blok and Vlaams Belang self-deceiving propaganda here to "support" your claim. Including totally irrelevant propaganda, like VB's mantras against the money transfers. You call this a "discussion" ? Phrases like "Stalinist Wallonia" are a show-stopper to me. They show who you really are: an misguided, dangerous ideologist, ready to see the world through VB's lenses, which do not seem to me much different from VB's lenses. (Now back to what I should not forget: don't feed the troll. Doh.) --FvdP 18:39, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And, by the way, you're shooting yourself in the foot. If the (alleged) change has been going on for years, then the last change of name is purely cosmetic. And Vlaams Belang really is the continuation of the Vlaams Blok. The alleged change should be described in the Vlaams Blok party since it occurred (according to you) when the VB was still called Vlaams Blok. No need then for a separate article for Vlaams Belang since that name change is not the real change. --FvdP 18:46, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You drown out in contradictions. On the one hand you write that I am a troll, thus someone who is challenging the dominant discourse and assumptions in an attempt to subvert and introduce different ways of thinking. But on the other hand you blame me to think like Flemish Interest party itself, by the way Belgium’s biggest party. Well in fact, I even have more bad news for you. It’s useless trying to stigmatise me. Namely, I merely am no Flemish Interest member. I even belong to another big political Flemish conservative way of thinking. But I am outraged by the injustice that has been done in Belgium to democracy in an attempt (in vain) to destroy Flemish Interest party.

And speaking about Wallonia as being Stalinist, isn’t that true? At least Wallonia managed to press and to get voted so-called anti-racism and anti-discrimination laws, and by the way of a kind of political controlled public prosecutor office (the Thought Police) to organise POLITICAL TRIALS against a Flemish political opponent.

And the name change then. Thank you for not contesting in advance the fact that “perhaps” already three years ago there was a major internal change in Flemish Interest party and to give it the advantage of the doubt. This is already a beautiful Christmas present you gave. Indeed, if they had the freedom to act, I (this is my personal conviction) they probably might have changed their name already three years ago. A separate Wikipedia article was thus in fact already needed three years ago.

I also will replace the link you removed ("26,000 times a bleeding heart", Thursday, December 16, 2004). Whether the concerned post was my idea or someone else's, or whether I wrote it or somebody else, I even won’t discuss with you. But all this gives a good idea about the irrational hatred some leftist, and thus by excellence those in Wallonia, felt for Flemish Block, the predecessor of Flemish Interest. This hatred is so huge and blind that they simply are not able to see any change. But as Flanders is for ¾ conservative, I think it’s better to adopt the right of the majority and to continue with a separate article.

But to accommodate his Lordship’s wishes, I'll add that the neutrality of the article is contested.

Johan - Flanders - --Jvb – 12/2004

The mystery of Dewinter's "unalloyed Fascism"

Here follows the translation and referencing of a well-publicised riposte to Belgian Prime Minister, Guy Verhofstadt and his use of a familiar slur against Vlaams Belang’s leading spirit, Filip Dewinter. The article was written by Eric Defoort, dean of the History Department of Brussels Catholic University.

(Note: Copyright violation removed) -- Karada 08:37, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Jvb, I am a bit worry about this copyrighted "copied pasted" article from a newspaper even in this talk page. We have no authorization at all to reproduce this article in its entirety. It should be removed even here. Sorry. --Edcolins 08:35, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

FLANDERS’ BIGEST QUALITY NEWSPAPER DE STANDAARD HAS GRANTED THE NECESSARY COPYRIGHT TO THE ENGLISH-SPEAKING WIKIPEDIA ENCYCLOPEDIA.

This follows out of my correspondence with the newspaper’s client service hereafter (in Dutch - with thanks):

Van: StandaardOnline@standaard.be Verzonden: donderdag 3 februari 2005 11:15 Aan: --Jvb

Onderwerp: Re: Technisch probleem

Beste heer --Jvb,

Dank voor uw bericht.

Ik heb dit voor u nagevraagd bij onze webmaster en u mag inderdaad dit artikel overnemen zoals u voorstelt. Er zullen u hiervoor geen kosten aangerekend worden, maar het is wel belangrijk (zoals u zelf ook vermeldt) dat wij als bron bij dit artikel staan.

Heeft u nog vragen of problemen? Aarzel dan niet om ons te contacteren.

Vriendelijke groeten, Jurryt Derynck

---

De Standaard Online www.standaard.be

standaardonline@standaard.be

De klantendienst van De Standaard Online is ook telefonisch te bereiken van maandag tot vrijdag van 08.00u tot 17.00u op 02/790.21.10 (U vraagt best naar Jurryt Derynck)

---

The following information concerns: Technisch probleem --

Ik probeer al een hele tijd het copyright voor een artikel te verwerven, maar ik kom altijd terecht bij: http://www.get-a-copy.com/servicedown.htm Werkt "tijdelijk" niet dus.

Eind vorige week heb ik dan maar onderstaande email gestuurd naar De Standaard, maar die antwoordt niet. Waarschijnlijk omdat deze denkt dat dit zijn ding niet is en de werkuren bij De Standaard ook tellen. Men krijgt zoveel blabla binnen nietwaar?

Daarom probeer ik mijn geluk maar even bij u. Ik zal er mijn abonnement wel niet voor opzeggen, maar leuk is toch wat anders.

Ik ben overigens van mening dat dit copyright mij niets moet kosten. Het is voor de (Engelstalige) versie van de Free Encyclopaedia Wikipedia. Om mijn vertaling er te kunnen opzetten (zie verder). Wikipedia is iets dat in de Angelsaksische landen vooral in het onderwijs wordt gebruikt.

Maakt u dat voor mij in orde?

MIJN EERDERE EMAIL:

Aan: Tom.Heremans@standaard.be Onderwerp: Copyright artikel De Standaard op Engelstalige Wikipedia

Geachte Heer,

Ik ben al jaren een trouw lezer en abonnee van De Standaard. Voor de Engelstalige encyclopedie Wikipedia heb ik een vertaling gemaakt van een artikel. De link naar De Standaard is als volgt: http://www.standaard.be/archief/zoeken/DetailNew.asp?full=0&articleID=G33B6RSA&trefwoord=defoort&section=&subsection=&datum1=&datum2=&wat=1&Fulltref=0&page=1&trefwoord2=&oldtrefwoord2=

De link naar waar ik het vertaald heb is als volgt: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Flemish_Interest&oldid=9729856 Zie: The mystery of Dewinter's "unalloyed Fascism"

Mijn probleem is dat dit artikel copyright is van De Standaard. Ik zou het kunnen samenvatten, maar dan gaat de ziel van het artikel verloren. Daarom vraag ik u de toestemming om het artikel in vertaling en mits weergave van de bron te mogen gebruiken. Zoals u kan zien vermeld ik tevens dat De Standaard een kwaliteitskrant is. Daardoor maak ik zelfs een beetje reclame voor u. Het artikel is tijdelijk verwijderd in afwachting van een hopelijk positief antwoord.

Mijn bedoeling is enkel om in het buitenland een zo evenwichtig mogelijk beeld op te hangen van onze regio. Uiteraard is dit een activiteit waar ik niets aan verdien.

Indien ik bij de verkeerde persoon terecht gekomen ben, gelieve deze mail dan door te sturen.

In de hoop op een gunstig antwoord groet ik u met de meeste hoogachting,

--Jvb

MIJN VERTALING:

Belgian prime-minister Guy Verhofstadt and his Minister of Foreign Affairs Karel De Gucht have portrayed Filip Dewinter (http://www.filipdewinter.be/) as an "unalloyed fascist" (quality daily De Standaard December,17 2004). As an historian specialising in the study of several forms of fascism - National-Socialist, reactionary, ultra-right-wing and far-right thinking and acting - I really don't know what to make of this. In particular, I don't know what to make of that word, "unalloyed". Does Verhofstadt and De Gucht have Marinetti (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Filippo_Tommaso_Marinetti) in mind? Or do they perhaps mean Mussolini (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html)? But would that be the Benito from before or after the Lateran Treaty (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Lateran_Treaty)? Could it be that they see in Dewinter a kind of d'Annunzio (http://www.gabrieledannunzio.net/english/), where Fiume (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Fiume) fraternizes with Antwerp?

Perhaps, like a lot of people, they just use "fascist" loosely to mean National Socialist. But then we are left with the problem of that "unalloyed", because historians invariable hold that the distinctions between Fascism and National Socialism are larger than the analogies. Large parts of Fascism are characterised by a vitalistic-optimistic anthropology. Is that what the two liberal1 coryphées see in Dewinter?

Perhaps Luckas Vander Taelen (http://www.griffe.be/clients/lionelsamain/bookweb-ls/portraits%20de%20la% 20semaine/06vandertaalen.html) can help us. This historian, who once held a seat in the European Parliament for Agalev (the Flemish far-left, now called Groen!, i.e. the Greens), declared in 1995 that he saw no fascism in Filip Dewinter but, instead, a far-right reactionary democrat. This does absolutely nothing to simplify things. But at least, thanks to Vander Taelen, the problem is restricted chronologically: Dewinter's transformation into what Verhofstadt calls an "unalloyed fascist" must, therefore, have taken place between 1995 and 2004.

But really, if you try to label post-war and contemporary politics with an historically situated, strongly differentiated concept like fascism you will soon find yourself on a very precarious venture. The political personalities you must conflate range from Evita Peron to Pim Fortuyn. You will soon learn, among other things, that inside an "unalloyed fascist lurks a potential "neo-fascist in which hides the promise of a "post-fascist who is at heart nothing more than an "unalloyed gentleman" You will have to force Dewinter inside a Russian Matrushka doll? This is an issue Minister De Gucht should discuss urgently with his Italian colleague Gianfranco Fini (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4022673.stm).

But, of course, none of this has been written for the benefit of Belgium's Prime-Minister and his Minister of Foreign Affairs De Gucht. They don't worry about correct and nuanced terminology. Their goal is simply to depict a distorted image of their antagonist, whom they can then scold with missionary zeal. They lose sight of the fact that by acting in this way they take on more and more aspects of the image they so want to scold.

Michel Eyquem, seigneur de Montaigne, already told us long ago - in the sixteenth century, in fact - that he who is a distorter of the meaning of words is also a betrayer of society. And an unalloyed one.

Neutrality

This article is no longer a neutral factual article providing non partisan information, instead it is polemical. :--Ratatouille

Ratatouille is French for “give someone a beating”. That already explains much about the person who mutilated the article. But the topic about Flemish Interest is complicated perhaps because it conjures passions?

On the Dutch Wikipedia, Flemish Interest’s home, it is represented as a right-wing party. On the French Wikipedia (directed from Belgium’s French-speakers) it is represented as far-right. I won’t discuss this matter again. Those interested can read the texts above, but I would attribute Flemish Interest the advantage of the doubt.

But the same opposition we now even see internationally: The New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/20/weekinreview/20smit.html?

speaks about a “far-right party whose founders were Nazi collaborators”, which is in flagrant opposition with Dutch Wikipedia at: http://nl.wiki.x.io/wiki/Karel_Dillen And because the latter article is founded on historical research, I think it should prevail. Also because meanwhile we know that the New York Times was briefed by Marco Martiniello, a Belgian French-speaking professor in political science, see :http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/12/international/europe/12belgium.html?pagewanted=1

who is certainly a non-historian. Also noting that this falsification of history is the foundation on which the New York Times builds the rest of its exposé.

Therefore I think that what on the one hand Eric Defoort (http://www.kubrussel.ac.be/onderwijs/personeel/defoort/defoort.htm), dean of the History Department of (Dutch-speaking) Brussels Catholic University and on the other hand, a furhter explanation of what

Bart Brinckman (http://www.standaard.be/info/contact/afdeling.asp?id=22) says, the one who leads the Wetstraat (Downing Street) redaction of the Flemish quality newspaper De Standaard, is the right way to understand the real situation.

--Jvb – March 6, 2005

The neutrality of this article is still disputed. It is biased because it presents mainly one view. Please also state the views of your "ennemies", that will make a balanced article, with a panel of opinions about the Flemish BlockFlemish Interest. The "pov" tag shouldn't be removed before obtaining a consensual balanced article. If some people think the article is biased, there is certainly ground for improvement. --Edcolins 15:04, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

The new party calls Flemish Interest.

Apart from the party platform which is Flemish Interest’s one, the rest of the ideas come out of the biggest Flemish quality newspaper De Standaard. Thus it is mainstream.

But on the French-speaking television in Belgium it is FORBIDDEN to speak about the far-right and their platform. By this they hope to obstruct their growth by keeping their present silent. So the French-speakers in Belgium are only informed by what they hear about the French Front National. Is the Belgian Front National the same as the French Front National? Altough I don’t want to intervene into the internal affairs of the Belgian French-speakers, I think YES.

But at the same time the French-speakers regard as equal Front National and Flemish Interest, full stop. Why must people (the French-speakers) judge about Flemish people they even don’t know? If by the end of next week there is no reasonable response to this argumentation, may I then suppose that there is consensus so that the “pov” tag can be removed?

--Jvb – March 6, 2005

De Standaard is probably a good mainstream newspaper and Eric Defoort probably a brilliant intellectual, I trust you on this. However the article will not be neutral unless a plurality of opinions are expressed so as to make a neutral article. You state that Eric Defoort's article is a reaction after prime minister Guy Verhofstadt expressed his opinion. I conclude that Eric Defoort's opinion contradicts at least to a certain extent those of the prime minister, and that the article is biased.

It would be interesting to know opinions of "external" commentators, such as French-speaking politicians and British journalists. --Edcolins 16:46, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Why does prime-minister Verhofstadt banalize the term “fascism” vis-à-vis Flemish Interest? That’s something he doesn’t say. So from his side there is simply no opinion that can be reported. The problem is rather that he is engaged in a struggle for survival. His VLD party meanwhile has become the fourth party in the opinion polls in Flanders, so that he has to fear new elections. But in his party, at the base, people want to collaborate with Flemish Interest locally, because they feel affinity with Flemish Interest. But this is forbidden by Walloon socialist president Di Rupo, who has already said that he can make the federal Belgian government fall with a snap of his fingers.

And why do all of the French-speaking politicians hate Flemish Interest? Because of their so-called fascism? Of course not. Only because free-marked oriented Flemish Interest wants independence for Flanders. Flanders actually transfers every year 11,3 billion Eurodollar ($14,8 or £7,9) to the French-speakers and that amount is still growing. This should be seen in the following context:

55% of the Walloons is earning an income, composed as follows:

-16% private domain (industry and commerce)

-39% public domain (public administrations, unemployment benefits…)

This is the information N-VA party leader Bart De Wever has found in the official Belgian public accounting figures. Some time ago he was on the Flemish television in a discussion program. His opponent, the son of (Walloon) Euro commissar Michel was present, but did not deny the numbers.

And the British journalists you are looking for? Well ok then let them decide, see at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3995341.stm I read: “populism but with a softening approach”. In that case what you wrote is perhaps the best: "far-right/right-wing". I suppose that you agree with your own text? In that case the opinion tag can be lifted. I will wait a week for reactions.

At any event don’t ask me to write things down that prime-minister Verhofstadt (very probably) only thinks.

--Jvb – March 7, 2005

Wikipedia should not be a collection of translated articles from national or local newspapers. It should be factual, neutral correct and non polemical. What is written in this Wikipedia article is vehemently polemical, and contains the ranting of somebody who sees conspiracies everywhere, evidently some want to propagate their political views on a supposedly non political platform. By the way, I chose Ratatouille not as a "nom de guerre", I chose ratatouille because it is a popular dish in southern France, and this has nothing to do with beating somebody up, as opposed to what some of my dear Flemish compratiotes seem always eager to do.

You admit that ratatouille also has the informal meaning "to give a beating". BTW, there was already a(nother?) French-speaker (see above) who wanted to beat me up. You should admit that it was at least suggestive from you to choose that name. And indeed, you now accuse (some?) Flemish to be (always) violent. Suggesting perhaps that I am one of them? Did I ever give reason to you that I would be like that? And more in general. Is it forbidden to look for information in newspapers? At any event, De Standaard is no local newspaper. Another expression of your contempt for your Flemish compatriots?

And a prime-minister who makes use (abuse) of his office to propagate rant about a political opponent, doesn’t that deserve an answer from a respected professor specialised in the matter? This goes about the core of the problem. A lack of respect. And the rest are facts. Facts you perhaps never read in Le Soir or La Libre Belgique. But that’s your problem, not mine. And that Flemish Interest’s opponents try to kill that party by cutting its funding is important enough. That Bart Brinckman , who leads the Wetstraat (Downing Street) redaction of the Flemish quality newspaper De Standaard, calls the Flemish parties “opportunistic chickens” is not my idea.

BTW, it’s not me who has invented this thriller. It’s YOUR people.

Moreover, this article is even much less favourable to Flemish Interest than the Dutch equivalent. There stands that it is a right-wing party, while here the wording is far-right/right-wing.

--Jvb – March 8, 2005

My dear user Jvb,

You cannot simply copy translated work of somebody else into a wikipedia article, this is not allowed by the Wikipedia rules. I did not mutilate your article, I did what is in my right as any other Wikipedian.

So please do not post again a literal translation of this article. You can rework the information contained in this article together with other facts and figures, and write your own original text in this Wikipedia article. Please do not forget to wikify your text as well while you are editing your text.

Furthermore, the political party Vlaams Belang is still receiving its rightful financing just as any other elected party, so writing several paragraphs about something which did not happen, is not what the Wikipedia encyclopedia is about. (that is why I deleted this section of your article)

If you want to have politically motivated rants, please set up your own website on which people can read your opinions, and you can put a link to this website on the bottom of the wikipedia article.

Basically, you must be factual, concise, and neutral in your Wikipedia article. Please do not take out the "attention" sign, anybody is allowed to edit and change any Wikipedia article, and this article badly needs some impartial editing.

If you cannot abide by these simple Wikipedia rules, I will have to request mediation. --Ratatouille 20:05, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

-Concerning item: The mystery of Dewinter's "unalloyed Fascism"

I fully agree with you when you are saying: “You cannot SIMPLY copy translated work of somebody else into a Wikipedia article, this is not allowed by the Wikipedia rules.” But the same argument was already used by another French-speaker trying to erase this text. Please make the effort to read at the discussion side about the item“The mystery of Dewinter's "unalloyed Fascism"”. There you can read that the quality newspaper De Standaard gave full copyright to the English-speaking Wikipedia Encyclopedia. So there is no cause to rework the information. It apparently goes beyond French-speakers’ imagination that I could ask and get (with or without paying) the copyright! Perhaps because in your French-speaking newspapers you never read contradiction about Flemish Interest?

-Concerning item: To cut the funding lifeline

The second text about the endangered party financing is also very important. Don’t forget that its predecessor Vlaams Blok was already effectively banned as a political party. And that in a country that claims to be a democracy! Showing in detail how the next political asssassination is prepared, waiting for the right moment to present itself, is certainly very instructive. The arguments of Bart Brinckman who leads the Wetstraat (Downing Street) redaction of the Flemish quality newspaper De Standaard are no political rant, but if a neutral observer like Mr. Edcolins who supervises this article has dissenting views and wants to rework the information, then I am sure an interesting debate will evolve.

--Jvb – March 9, 2005

I's not a matter of copyright. I have (so far) no strong reason to doubt that the right to use this article was granted to you. The matter is that it's not the purpose of Wikipedia article to cite full articles in-extenso (biased or not). --FvdP 21:02, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dear JvB,

I have no problem at all if you want to write an article on Flemish Interest, but the information you give is not very instructive or encyclopedia like. Please rework your information in a NPOV fashion and abide by the rules of Wikipedia, and please do not remove the "attention" sign until consensus has been reached. There is a lot of factual information which can be given in this article such as number of parliamentarians, presence in local government, principal members, party leaders, achievements, total membership, publications, a (short) summary of current topics and policies, ... etc. There is no room for rants or political discourses, Wikipedia is not a politcal arena. There is no right or wrong in factual information. --Ratatouille 19:59, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Concerning the two deleted subtitles about Flemish Interest leader Dewinter and the party funding at : http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Flemish_Interest&oldid=10968684

Flemish Interest is probably the ONLY major party in Western Europe that has emerged because its predecessor was banned and then one should concentrate oneself on mere factual information. I think our Wikipedia readers deserve better. BTW, the first deleted article, was written by a professor in history! The second emerged out of information that was delivered by Flander’s biggest quality newspaper De Standaard.

--Jvb – March 10, 2005

Flemish Interest’s alleged Nazi origins and sympathies

These are popular themes among leftists, Muslims, Walloons and some VLD-party members. Flemish Interest always denies, but mostly doesn’t elaborate.

--Jvb – March 13, 2005

I think this article has improved although the story about funding could be more concise and to the point. May be you could consider a separate article on this.--Ratatouille

The new explanations about party members are indeed a better way to inform than the satiric text about Dewinter’s alleged fascism, although the latter was written by a professor in history, Eric Defoort [1]. I myself am quite happy that now different and sometimes contrasting points of view are represented. But as is shown by history, Belgium is a complicated country and will always be as long as it is the sum of two. Even natives with poor historical knowledge don’t refrain from making radical but unfounded conclusions, not in the least when they are (opposing) politicians. The same should be kept in mind with the funding subtitle. I read it again and made some minor changes, but I fear that there is no option. BTW it is of the same length as the explanations about a more distant past. And it is direct information from mainstream opinion makers about a case in which accusations of attempted political (party) murder are involved. What can be more important in an article about a political party? --Jvb – March 16, 2005

The law to cut state party-funding

Still not neutral. You don't have to go that far to read sentences like this one : "The greater mystery is why a Flemish non-socialist majority party (in fact prime-minister Verhofstadt’s own conservative VLD party, which has the most to fear from Vlaams Belang) voted with their ideological enemies and, in so doing, scandalised the Flemish public. " I should not have to explain why it's not neutral ("the greater mystery" : rethoretical trick; "the [whole] Flemish public" : overgeneralisation, imputation not backed-up by controllable facts). It's also just plain wrong too: VLD and PS are not enemies, only opponents at worst, and currently even associates in the federal government. --FvdP 19:00, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

-> eventually removed the whole section --FvdP 19:49, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I changed: “greater mystery” into “oddity” to make things “neutral”.

I also made other changes and simplifications, for instance “ideological enemies” became “ideological opponents”, with the same intent.

But your quotation: "The [whole] Flemish public", in fact the quotation “scandalised the Flemish [conservative] public” should stay, because it was confirmed by last week’s fresh evidence. [2] See the section’s last paragraph. I reduced seven paragraphs to the bare minimum of one paragraph. At the same time this story gives an answer to your remark that the Flemish VLD and the Walloon PS are “opponents” at worst and currently even “associates” in the federal government. In view of this new information, your remarks can only look like an understatement. A better description would be to state that both parties keep each other hostage. But the [Flemish] electorate remarks such things and the VLD goes irresistably further down in each popularity poll. BTW, perhaps this is the controllable fact you are looking for?

When I write "[whole]" in "The [whole] Flemish public" I mean there is no other way to read "the flemish public" than meaning "the whole flemish public". There's no way a passing reader will interpolate the "conservative" you did not put there. (And there's no way you'll make me believe you don't understand that right away.) So at least the word "conservative" should be added explicitly. Why didn't you do at least that ? Why is it up to me to do that obvious neutralizing change ? --FvdP 20:32, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And the whole paragraph remains non-neutral: the word "oddity" is still non-neutral, it displays the POV that it it non-natural for the VLD to do that, but that's, say, your POV, apparently not the POV of the VLD members who voted that. As a matter of fact, it's actually only natural that the VLD votes laws together with the PS. How could they form a majority together without voting laws together ? --FvdP 20:32, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Also, there are many other non-neutral things in the paragraph, I only scratched the surface and the beginning of the section. Next point: do you think comparing people with lemmings is neutral or encyclopedic ? The comparison is too loaded, and it's again your POV that these people are working against themselves. --FvdP 20:11, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I repeat, if others like to write about Flemish Interest's alleged Nazi sympthies with roots 60 years ago, then writing at least to the same extent, about present day events to complete the picture, is surely well-balanced, isn’t it? Bart Brinkman leads the Wetstraat (Downing Street) redaction of the Flemish quality newspaper De Standaard. As chief analyst he represents his whole redactional staff. Political science is a science too. His arguments are no political rant. Interpretation by well-qualified personnel is admitted. --Jvb – March 31, 2005

"is surely well-balanced, isn’t it? " that is not sufficient. Both accounts must be balanced in themselves. --FvdP

"Interpretation by well-qualified personnel is admitted" : (1) when neutral. I'm not confident in the neutrality of De Standaard political commentators, regarding linguistical disputes. Some flemish people see Le Soir as exceedingly anti-flemishly biased. You should be aware that some french-speaking people see De Standaard as exceedingly flemishly biased. Which is right ? It's not up to you nor up to me to decide. The fact that a newspaper is of quality in most areas does not prevent it from being biased in some areas. (2) it's not because Briknman is (I suppose) an intelligent person that no Brinkman's article can ever be rantish or otherwise off the NPOV mark. (3) if that's Brinkman's interpretation of the reality, it must be balanced by other possible interpretations, and it must be separated from verifiable facts. --FvdP 20:32, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Removed this from intro: Geert Buelens of Berkeley University [3] and Antwerp University [4] sees parallels [5] between President Bush and California Governor Schwarzenegger on the one side and Flemish Interest on the other.

The link to De Standaard is for subscribers only. Since no way is given to know the content of the parallel, I removed any mention of it. (BTW I don't think the parallel holds, or at least it should be explained so that I and everyone can understand it.) --FvdP 19:51, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia articles are not the place for discussions like "A said X (see [1]) but B said Y (see [2])". This is too detailed and does not contribute much to a "big picture". I see no reason to cite NYTimes or W.Post here. Or then we could cite dozens of similar articles. Better sketch the opposition in general words, like i tried to do. --FvdP 20:32, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Point by point...

I removed (temporarily): His own conservative oppositional CD&V suffers as much from this law as does Verhofstadt’s VLD – in both cases, of course, to the advantage of Flemish Interest. Why should CD&V suffer "from this law" if they didn't vote it ? Or did they vote it ? That should be explained.

Removed Van Peel is only too aware that Verhofstadt is dragging both parties over the cliff. not-neutral, it states "Verhofstadt is dragging both parties over the cliff" as a fact, but that's an opinion.

Not yet removed But apprentice-wizard Eerdekens made a basic mistake with his magic kit. People are not stupid. They notice that kind of thing. In particular, the residents of Brussels and the hundreds of thousands of Flemish who commute there each day notice a fundamental change in their quality of life. To quote Eurostat (urbanaudit): in London the yearly probability of getting murdered is 3/100.000, but in Brussels it is 10/100.000. but keen on doing it: it's clearly not written in a NPOV, encyclopedic way. As just an example "they notice that kind of thing" is something between an opinion and a rethoretical trick. It's not a fact. --FvdP 20:47, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) (And besides, it's off-topic (remember topic = Eerdekens(?)'s law), it looks like the author seized yet another opportunity to push forwards VB's POV on immigrants... --FvdP 20:49, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC))

CONSERVATIVE FLANDERS. That’s 3/4 of the Flemish. In the French-speaking society you live, it’s the inverse, but don’t forget that we are speaking here about Flanders. And concerning your reproach that I would have omitted deliberately the word “conservative”. If a conservative party shocks “the” Flemish public by voting with their ideological opponents, then I think it’s obvious that they shock in the first place the Flemish conservatives. And a lemming does something that is difficult to explain. The VLD too. You changed this lemming explanation in “anti-natural”. I don’t think this is an improvement, because the idea about the consequence (a kind of political suicide by the VLD) is lost.

1) Your sentence they shock in the first place the Flemish conservatives does not exclude that all flemish people are shocked. Hence I take it that you really mean that all flemish people were shocked, and that statement is most probably wrong so can't be accepted in the article.

In the concerned paragraph, the word “conservative” was used twice by me and twice by you, but on another place. If you consider this as an improvement, that’s OK for me. --Jvb – April 6, 2005

It's an improvement because it's more correct. Style comes after correctness. --FvdP 18:51, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

2) That VLD's behaviour is difficult to explain is your point of view. (Perhaps you find it hard to explain it but that does not mean everyone does.) That VLD's behaviour works against VLD or flemish people's interests (not the Flemish Interest's interests, of course) is also your point of view. It's only a point of view, with which others disagree (e.g. the flemish parlementaries who voted the law), not a proven truth.

Sorry, but it’s not only my view. I have information from unimpeachable authority. In parliament there was a debate, the day before the Royal Decrees (that were necessary to publish the law) were discussed in the Council of Ministers. The VLD got the reproach of making slowing down manoeuvres. So it’s clear that they don’t feel happy with this fund cutting law, see: http://www.standaard.be/archief/zoeken/DetailNew.asp?full=0&articleID=G1NDJP8D&trefwoord=Schijnhuwelijken+worden+strafbaar&section=&subsection=&datum1=&datum2=&wat=1&Fulltref=0&page=1&trefwoord2=&oldtrefwoord2 Besides, the third conservative block, the CD&V N-VA, simply voted against too.--Jvb – April 6, 2005

Sorry I can't read your reference: once again, de pagina die u wilt lezen, behoort tot de abonneesectie van De Standaard Online. And in what you write besides, there's a shift of meaning: from VLD's hesitations to VLD members's impressions that the law would work against them to the "fact" (as you presented it) that the law indeed works against them. Noone has the "unimpeachable authority" to deduce anything from a shift of meaning. --FvdP

IN het parlement kreeg minister van Binnenlandse Zaken Patrick Dewael (VLD) gisteren niet minder dan vijf vragen over de uitvoeringsbesluiten… De kamerleden gebruikten de jongste uitlatingen van Vlaams Belangkamerlid Filip De Man (,,moslims zijn per definitie geen democraten) om Dewael eraan te herinneren aan het feit dat die uitvoeringsbesluiten nog steeds niet zijn gepubliceerd…. vertragingsmanoeuvres… At your service: --Jvb – April 9, 2005 Seems clear to me.

3) The idea about the consequence is not lost. It's still there in a tamed-down formulation since I wrote that some people think that VLD's position works at the expense of VLD's interests. And it's also still present in the two citations afterwards.

It’s all about time-perspective. First the left couldn’t believe Flemish Block/now Interest would ever get 10% of the votes in Flanders, afterwards it became 20%, now they evolve direction 30% and the same left cannot believe Flemish Interest will ever get 40%... --Jvb – April 6, 2005

DE STANDAARD NEWSPAPER. Is more neutral than Le Soir. In De Standaard, Filip Dewinter and the others from Flemish Interest write down their ideas and opponents answer. Did Dewinter ever write in Le Soir?

OK, Dewinter probably (as far as I know) never wrote in Le Soir. But that does not mean that in other respects, De Standaard is more neutral than Le Soir.

Filip Dewinter was only an example. This week there was a big interview in De Standaard. Party president Frank Vanhecke answered very critical questions. But at least, Flemish Interest gets a voice in De Standaard. In that respect De Standaard doesn’t distinguish among parties. Le Soir does. I know this because I regularly read Le Soir. Le Soir is not neutral. --Jvb – April 6, 2005

I could find you examples the other way round if that looked useful enough. But that's work. --FvdP 18:51, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I mean that Le Soir distinguishes, because Flemish Interest doesn’t get the same forum as other political parties --Jvb – April 9, 2005

HISTORY 60 YEARS AGO AND PRESENT HISTORY. Both are linked. Or to say it with professor Matthias Storme’s words: “if fascists will ever come back, then they will do it in disguise as being anti-fascists.”

Bah. What about fascists coming back as free-speach advocates ? Where free-speach means permission to propagate hate-laden speach ? And then, perhaps soon to close alternative source of ideas, like the french FN (a VB's ally) did in the municipalities it held and holds in southern France.

Who re-invented the Police State in Belgium? The Belgian Centre for Equal Opportunities (also called the Centre for Opposition Control) is a private owned (in view of its Board’s composition) public prosecution organisation. That the present majority sees the opposition as a pest is perhaps normal. But to call in the Judiciary (which normally should stay impartial) is a bridge too far. And that’s a reality on the ground in Belgium, in fact in Flanders. Flemish Interest on the contrary, advocates the most absolute form of free speech. And in their behaviour, they rather show affinity with the neo-conservatives in the United States. With Le Pen’s FN they only form, such as Flemish Interest expresses it, a “technical” alliance in the European Parliament, because in big Europe, Flemish Interest is too small for a stand-alone.--Jvb – April 6, 2005

Believe what pleases you, I maintain my point of view. VB shares much with FN, except perhaps the love for the french language. --FvdP

A major difference between FN and Flemish Interest is that Flemish Interest takes its decisions with the whole board after thorough discussions. This is a guarantee for better decisions. Moreover, the board has a good geographical spread over the whole of Flanders.

For what I know, you overestimate VB's internal democracy (and anyway, who's in that board ?). And do you really think FN's audience is restricted to a few regions of France ?

Judge by your own. Partijbestuur Vlaams Belang: Frank Vanhecke, voorzitter en europarlementslid, Brugge; Gerolf Annemans , kamerlid, Antwerpen; Filip Dewinter , Vlaams parlementslid, Antwerpen; Wim Verreycken , senator, Sint-Niklaas; Jurgen Ceder , senator, Dilbeek;Joris Van Hauthem , Vlaams parlementslid, Lennik; Karim Van Overmeire , Vlaams parlementslid, Aalst; Francis Van den Eynde , kamerlid, Gent; Philip Claeys , europarlementslid, Brugge; Bert Schoofs , kamerlid, Hasselt; Luk Van Nieuwenhuysen , Vlaams parlementslid, Bornem; Marie-Rose Morel , Vlaams parlementslid, Antwerpen; Anke Van dermeersch , senator, Antwerpen; Johan Demol , Brussels parlementslid, Schaarbeek; Marijke Dillen , Vlaams parlementslid, Schilde ;Patsy Vatlet , penningmeester, Grimbergen ;Hans Verreyt , voorzitter VBJ, Lint; Karel Dillen , voorzitter-voor-het-leven, Antwerpen

--Jvb – April 9, 2005

You don't answer my remark ! It was about France, not Flanders. Do you really think FN's audience is restricted to a few regions of France ? --FvdP 19:29, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don’t think FN's audience is restricted to a few regions of France. I wanted to stress that Flemish Interest is not only an Antwerp phenomenon.

But wasn’t there in the FN a split-up of the party between modernists ( http://www.bruno-megret.com/index_coteprive.php3 ) and old fashened Le Pen who outbalanced them so that they had to found a new (small) party? Something like that is inconceivable with Flemish Interest. --Jvb – April 13, 2005

Flemish Interest president Vanhecke said in his last interview in De Standaard, that he will soon go to America to raise the matter of Flander’s independence. He says that he has good contacts in America, up to close to the White House, and I tend to believe him.

I don't see how that can be true. But with the Bush connection, you never know... --FvdP

Mr. Belien is an American journalist, who happens to be married with an Irishwoman, lady Colen, who is MP for Flemish Interest. They already foster these kind of relations for years. Belien writes (or knows people) in different American newspapers (the Wall Street Journal...), magazines… and is for instance a friend of the actual White House spokesman… --Jvb – April 9, 2005

Whether they love the French language or not, that’s irrelevant. --Jvb – April 6, 2005

That was a jokingly manner for me to point to the only difference I see between the VB and the FN... The VB probably want to eradicate the French language from all official (and probably also less official) uses in Flanders, right ?

Dutch already is the only official language in Flanders.

And French can be used for administrative matters in some places in some cases. --FvdP

Don’t exaggerate. In the Flemish border zone around Brussels, French-speaking immigrants can ask for a free TRANSLATION of the local authority’s documents. But those French-speakers must ask it each time again. --Jvb – April 13, 2005

The private use of languages is free, except between employers and employees. Flemish Interest has no item in its platform that wants to change this. --Jvb – April 9, 2005

On the platform I suppose you are right, but as for what will actually happen, you never know. And I mean this not only about VB, also about other vlamingant parties. While probably noone will forbid people to speak french, they may well take more subtle measures that erode the use of french even in private matters, perhaps purposefully. --FvdP 19:29, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

PARTY DESCRIPTION. In the case of a controversial party like Flemish Interest, it’s not enough to describe the party as such. Should also be discussed, things that this party must undergo (suffer). Especially when their opponents are changing the rules of the game during the game. Because the opponents feel they have problems to win elections?

Each section must stand as neutral on its own. So when you state what VB had to "suffer", don't forget to mention that many people, also in Flanders, see this "suffering" as justified, and why.

I used the word “suffer”, because in Belgium there is in this respect no strict separation of the Judiciary and the Executive. That’s something you seem to condone. --Jvb – April 6, 2005

There is a legally voted law and the Vlaams Blok (or affiliated organisations) violated it. And even if your argument were correct, I would maintain "suffer" is biased, because it's only one point of view.

In my dictionary “suffer” means that “something causes damage”, that “it is to the detriment”. Whether it is justified or not is something else. --Jvb – April 6, 2005

Words also have a connotation. And... when you write "I used the word “suffer”, because in Belgium there is in this respect no strict separation of the Judiciary and the Executive. That’s something you seem to condone" don't you just rely on the fact that (you think) the suffering is unjustified ? --FvdP

You ask the wrong question. Do you think that the fact that in Belgium there is no strict separation of the Judiciary and the Executive is justified? --Jvb – April 9, 2005

THE NEW YORK TIMES AND THE WASHINGTON TIMES. These are really very important sources. They have top journalists. They are respected opinion makers. If it was me who would write the same, would you accept it?

NYT & WT are quite irrelevant here. The (alledged) contradiction between them is at best useful as an example of how things are disputed. We are not interested about what NYT and WT think but about what is true.

The perception should come from the Anglo-American side. You don’t seem to understand that The New York Times and The Washington Times themselves are part of the global picture. The American society is profoundly separated in two different parts too and each of them has its favourite newspaper. To write that both newspapers have an opposite view about Flemish Interest, explains more to the reader than something else could do. --Jvb – April 6, 2005

Which reader, I wonder. Also, I don't think the WT article is so much in favour of the VB.

In Flanders, most people know that the daily de Morgen is left-wing and that Gazet van Antwerpen or Belang van Limburg are more conservative. This has consequences for the content of their articles. The same, but fifty times bigger, is true in America.

Glad you tell me that. I had no clue such things could happen in America. I had always thought they were all clones of Bill Clinton... --FvdP

The Washington Times article is in favor of Flemish Interest because it subscribes the idea that they are right-wing, the same such as Flemish Interest presents itself. The New York Times article is presented by The Washington Times as a “muddled” analysis, see especially the following: Trying to assess the rise of the anti-immigration party Vlaams Belang, which represents almost a quarter of the Belgian electorate today, the New York Times reporter seems perplexed. This is how I think he thinks: To be anti-immigration is to be, as he puts it, "far right" or "extreme right." And to be "far right" or "extreme right" is to be very, very bad. Weren't Nazis both far and extreme right " or is that the Republican Party? --Jvb – April 6, 2005

The WT article also presents the VB as far-right. Don't they ? --FvdP

The Washington Times denounces The New York Times’ brain twisting that must lead to call Flemish Interest as such, starting with: To be anti-immigration is to be, as HE (from The New York Times) puts it, "far right" or "extreme right." And in that respect, the ultimate goal is even to make the link with the Republican Party, in fact President Bush--Jvb – April 9, 2005

It would help if told precisely about which of Washington Post's "articles" you're talking about. I thought you were talking about Gareth Harding's article(he's their chief correspondant in Europe) but I've just realized you were actually talking about a Diana West's "op ed" contribution to the Washington Post. I don't know what "op ed" actually means, but they are definitely not intended as factual articles, they're really opiniated editorials (ah, now I realize what "op ed" might stand for ;-)) from people who often come from outside of the regular redaction of the newspaper. I know that, because I regularly read regular articles and "op ed" contributions to the New-York Times site. A few of these "op ed"s were clearly written by people who disagree with NYT's point of view. So, Diana West's quite opiniated article cannot be considered a position of the Washington Post itself. In Washington Post's"analysis" (Nov 11, 2004) the tone is much less favourable to your views. Let me quote it: "On Wednesday, Belgium's highest court upheld a ruling judging the Vlaams Blok, Europe's most successful far-right party, to be racist". They say VB is far-right don't they ? "The party now has a new name (...), and a new toned-down manifesto. But how much has it changed in substance?" "As if to underline how the party has changed more in style than in substance". On the other hand, it agrees with you on this: "Since its birth almost 30 years ago, Belgium's mainstream parties have waged a relentless war on the Blok, (...) However, this has only boosted support for the nationalist grouping"

The Washington Times is differently structured than The New York Times. The Washington Times works with PERMANENT columnist, see: http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed As far as the writing is done by a permanent columnist, it is subscribed by the Washington Times itself. Diana West also is a Townhall columnist, see http://www.townhall.com/columnists/, a fact which underlines her importance.

Next issue. Don’t forget that Diana West’s text is based upon Bat Ye'or’s book. That book contains much more facts, than offered in the New York Times (two) article(s).

Gareth Harding (in the first The Washington Times article) spoke about the Vlaams Blok party and starts with “The Vlaams Blok is dead, long live the Vlaams Belang.” So he is comparing Vlaams Belang with a king. That doesn’t sound pejorative, isn’t it? The Washington Times writes that Belgium's highest court upheld a ruling judging the Vlaams Blok to be racist. But The Washington Times writes at the same time that the party itself vigorously denied accusations of racism. The Washington Times is at least placing both views on the same level. Flemish Interest’s point of view is that the problem is rather the bad Belgian law.

Gareth Harding from The Washington Times also writes: "As if to underline how the party has changed more in style than in substance". But the latter pronouncement is based on Flemish Interest’s own words, which not only should be read in combination with their former denial of racism, more important is the “AS IF”, which simply asks for more information. And indeed, meanwhile Dewinter’s words about “veiled women” were more developed in detail, more specified. It meanwhile became clear that Flemish Interest in that respect doesn’t want to go further than what is now already the law in France (no veil at school and in public service). This is the explication and the reply to what the journalist was asking by himself by that earlier time. Dewinter was thus in fact only denouncing that Belgium takes a weaker stand than France already does by the French law. But France isn’t actually governed by a far-right government, isn’t it?

But I agree with you that it would help to present, in some way, more precisely about which of the Washington Post's "articles" I was talking. That would be an improvement to the actual version--Jvb – April 13, 2005

VAN PEEL(CD&V N-VA) If the conservative Flemish (who have the choice between the CD&V N-VA cartel, Flemish Interest or VLD) are disappointed or disgusted by certain governmental policies, then as a matter of fact, these people, in much cases, tend to vote directly for Flemish Interest instead of the more moderate CD&V N-VA opposition cartel. In that way, Van Peel’s party is squeezed between the government and Flemish Interest. But me having no direct confirmation of this argumentation in the fund-cutting context (and thus by a more endowed talent of an analyst than me), I hope you will excuse me being reluctant to write such explanations right down. But if you would agree with this argumentation, and consider it to be useful, nevertheless, in that case, I am prepared to write it down as such. And about Van Peel’s voting conduct? The CD&V voted AGAINST see: http://www.standaard.be/archief/zoeken/DetailNew.asp?articleID=DMF12012005_003&snel=1 That’s understandable, if one knows that Van Peel sees a conspiracy behind the law. But if you insist, I will add this too.

THE SECURITY SITUATION IN BRUSSELS. Last weeks this got much attention in the Flemish press, because of an undercover journalist who dwelled long-time in Brussels’ Molenbeek district, where the Moroccan youth has taken over control of the streets. One could see it as a kind of The Bronx, but under Allah’s supervision. At first sight, the statements here might seem written in a style that can be qualified as “strong”, but how else is the situation itself? And about the murders we are sure. Death is death. The other criminal statistics for the last years are worthless, at least that’s what was written in the (Flemish) newspapers last weeks.

1) the youth who cause problems in the street are not likely to be the same youth who go to the mosque. So your insinuation about "Allah’s supervision" is off-the-mark, besides being more rethoretical than content-full.~

"Allah’s supervision" was a remark off the record, not in the article, but nevertheless things might be more complicated than you imagine. Such as mentioned, a Flemish journalist of Moroccan descent, lady Hind Fraihi, lived two months undercover in Molenbeek (Brussels), see also (in English) http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?channel_id=3&story_id=17996 But during her undercover journalistic mission she discovered that the 90% “respectable” Muslims know very well what the other 10% are doing, chasing away the natives. The 90% “respectable” Muslims protect themselves against the street criminals but condone as far as the natives are concerned. Isn’t that discrimination? --Jvb – April 6, 2005

2) "strong" style like this may be good for pamphlets or opiniated blogging, but is not suited here because it represents only one point of view and takes it for granted, and tries more to stir emotions than to present facts. --FvdP 18:24, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

When I used the word “strong”, I meant that Flemish Interest and the Belgian Establishment are on collision course. Perhaps you deplore it that Belgium now is in a precarious situation, but this is a fact. --Jvb – April 6, 2005

No, you referred explicitly to your style, not to the contents. Your style I described and "deplored" above. (You're trying to divert the discussion, aren't you ?) --FvdP

I see that you try to be an expert in hermeneutics, such as other persons who sometimes even make a living out of observing Flemish Interest at close range. But please proceed with caution, especially with intentions. Please read what I wrote and not what you want me to have written. Very important is that I wrote “at first sight”. Also important is that I wrote “might seem”. It is my conviction that it is you who are giving emotional connotations to words. The discussion above, afterwards, about “suffer” only strengthens that impression. --Jvb – April 6, 2005

And I think, and it's precisely what I wrote, that you are chosing your words precisely so that readers give them a connotation that favours the Vlaams Blok/Belang. Perhaps is this not a conscious choice of yours but one dictated by the power of your convictions, I don't know. --FvdP 18:51, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But that’s just what I think about your own contributions (but turned around) at the French-speaking Wikipedia Encyclopedia!

Could you give specific examples, so that I can see some changes would be justified (and do them), or whether I maintain "my" text as such ? (Please either on the relevant discussion pages on [fr:], or if you're afraid your french is too bad (or for any other reasons), perhaps on a specific page here, thanks. This page is too long already... ) --FvdP 19:29, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

SOME SUGGESTIONS.

INTERNALLY NOT DEMOCRATIC? Flemish Interest President Vanhecke was democratically elected by thousands of Flemish Interest executives.

PLATFORM: Their proposed economic policies? Pension reform? Lacks. You write: « s'ils n'ont pas de programme précis (ou réalisable) » Whether their platform can be realised or not much depends upon one’s point of view. Within the present Belgian system it will indeed be difficult.

VLAAMS BLOK’S CONDEMNATION FOR RACISM: don’t forget to depict the context.

DEMAGOGIC? As an example, Dewinter’s pronouncement concerning “veiled women”, see discussion on this page above. Please wait some days for additional explications in such cases, before coming to conclusions.. They can’t say and explain everything at the same moment.

OTHER SENTENCES:

-« le Vlaams Blok est condamné par la majorité (in Flanders I suppose ?) pour ses (all of its?) opinions» I have my doubts that in Flanders there is a majority that opposes most of their platform items. I don’t think you can show a study that proves the opposite.

-« Karen Dillen: connu pour ses sympathies notoires à l'égard du nazisme » I hope you aren’t saying that he was a collaborator with the Nazis, such as The New York Times represents it? Please then read the article about Karel Dillen at the Dutch Wikipedia. It’s not because The New York Times retails the historic lies they got palmed off from a French-speaking professor in political sciences from Liege, that the story is true.

-« le Vlaams Belang: parti avec essentiellement le même programme (as the Flemish Block) » A week or so before Flemish Interest was founded, thus in its run-up, they got a fundamentally new platform. --Jvb – April 13, 2005

My only conviction in this matter is that judges can better stay out of the political debate. By this Flemish Interest succeeds in presenting itself to the electorate as a martyr. Such things should be reserved for religion.--Jvb – April 9, 2005

--Jvb – April 1, 2005

This whole section in the page seems like one person telling a story or giving a speech, and is openly biased in favour of Flemish Interest. I'm attempting to do a few modifications, but I believe the best answer would be to entirely redo it.

--Curufinwe – April 2, 2005 CE

I do 100% agree, of course, and thanks for helping. There's still much work to do to make this section acceptable in Wikipedia. --FvdP 17:27, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See my remarks below. --Jvb – April 6, 2005

Is the whole section “The law to cut state party-funding” openly biased in favour of Flemish Interest?

First, I want to encourage you, to continue making text improvements. Nevertheless, I must confess that the way you expressed your remark about a possible bias, gave me a bad feeling, although I am sure you didn’t do it on purpose. In fact it even gave me the same kind of shivers as the Nazi propaganda film “Der Führer schenkt die Juden eine Stadt” (translated: Theresienstadt, a present for the Jews from the Führer). Don’t forget that this section is a sad story, intended to end in the death of this non-violent political party, also Belgium’s biggest.

But may I suppose you perhaps intended something quite different? Why not add to the story the literal remarks of Flemish Interest’s opponents in parliament on March 24, 2005, the day before the final decision in the Belgian Council of Ministers? If the political opponents have had their say, is then the picture complete and unbiased? Let me know. BTW, this discussion in parliament followed a string of events, which originally started with a newspaper article, borrowed by The China Post, see: http://www.chinapost.com.tw/i_latestdetail.asp?id=26979 Flemish Interest asserts that it was a cunning piece of journalistic contortion, something close to disinformation. --Jvb – April 4, 2005

It's POV. I have the bad feeling that you are far from understanding what the NPOV policy of Wikipedia really means (or perhaps, you know and just don't want to care about neutrality). You're so busy trying to correct an alledged injustice that you entirely ignore opposed point of views or dismiss them without argumentation (often even implicitly). That's not a neutral approach to writing and no wonder it does not fit Wikipedia's neutrality policy. --FvdP 17:27, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I really do care about neutrality. Your mysterious ally Curufinwe speaks about a bias in favour of Flemish Interest and you are reproaching me that I ignore opposed point of views. Such as I already wrote, I am prepared to look up what Flemish Interest’s political opponents literally have said in parliament in this context, to make a more complete picture. I plan to do it this or next week. --Jvb – April 6, 2005