Talk:List of political parties in Belgium

Point of interest
I noticed that this page is referred to from the english language style guide of the european union, in it's annex on Belgium. So it hopefully means that it's pretty good. It can be found at http://ec.europa.eu/translation/writing/style_guides/english/style_guide_en.pdf 134.58.253.57 15:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Moved
I have changed the name of this article since it is no more just a list... but now an elaborated article about the political parties in Belgium. Well done Wilfried! --Edcolins 16:49, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

Flemish Block / Flemish Interest
It might be noteworthy to mention that, according to a large recent survey in Flanders by a popular newspaper collaborating with 2 respected University professors, 94.9% of the members of Flemish BLock/Flemish Interest, actually FAVOUR Flemish Independence, as opposed to your article stating that a mojority opposed it. This totals a whopping 51% of Flemish who favour an immediate seccesion from the Kingdom of Belgium. The Flemish Block / Flemish Interest Party is still an active Flemish Nationalist Party, and often named side by side with the -smaller- N-VA when the topic of Flemish Independence hits the tables of Belgian politics once again.

Gillis

PS: the numbers can be checked at: http://stemmenkampioen.hln.be/Resultaten/resultaten_weekvragen.php (Weekly Question 30)

Vlaams Belang, far right
I reverted the edit of 1652186, which called Vlaams Belang "right" instead of "far right". I do not agree or disagree with either label, but edit was pov, because it involved a lenghty explanation on whether the Vlaams Belang is right or far right. That does not belong on the articles main page but on it's talk, where we could discuss the labelling of Vlaams Belang.C mon 20:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So that's how we do it around here now? Revert a whole edit because we don't like a part of it... Well, I reinstated my changes, but rephrased the only part with which somebody could possibly have a problem. If you still call this POV, then I'm afraid you have the wrong idea about what POV is. 1652186 20:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right that wasn't very polite, but don't you think that is rather strange to have the debate about the label of the Vlaams Belang in this article and have a header that reads "the (far) right", why don't we refer to the party as "flemish nationalist" or "right-wing nationalist" as the Vlaams Blok page currently reads, and not enter on the right or far right issue here, because those issues are better discussed at the Vlaams Belang or Vlaams Blok pages? C mon 10:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's anything wrong with giving a short 2-line explantion about the views on the party. If you want to call it flemish nationalist or right-wing nationalist, that's fine with me. 1652186 11:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the description "(far) right" is best suited. One of the issues with Vlaams Belang is the efforts the party is making to shed its far right image, and to convince the public that it has changed into a normal right wing or conservative party. Most people (including a number of the party's voters and followers) believe that this is only window dressing. Changing the description on Wikipedia from 'far right' to plain 'right wing' is a move that has a clear signification, and could be considered POV. --LucVerhelst 15:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Right... Surely the person who said my edits were POV is doing the same... I do agree with the changes though. 1652186 16:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * My only points were that discussion whether the Vlaams Belang is rightwing or far right or whatever does not fit on this page, but on the Vlaams Belang page, and that the original edit, which gave arguments for one side of this issue did fit a neutral point of view. C mon 18:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I know, my last comment was not directed against you, but against LucVerhelst.1652186 18:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

American terms
"In American terms the Liberals' economic positions would be considered to reflect a moderate conservative ideology." That may very well be, but why should it be pointed out? I'm removing it.

Naming conventions

 * (Moved out of my talk page. - Altenmann >t 02:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC))

Could you please explain why Naming conventions (political parties) #4 does not apply to Belgian political parties? You moved Sociaal-Liberale Partij back to Social Liberal Party (Belgium), despite Belgium being a multlingual country where party names are kept in the original name (e.g. Parti Socialiste vs. SP-A. Fram (talk) 06:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, since you made the move out of the original name, you have to prove that it fits the exception, namely that it is one of the "Parties whose names are always kept in one language in a multilingual country". Please keep in mind that not all parties in multilingual states are untranslatable, and the rule you cite gives an example. Please explain this somewhere, e.g. in Talk:Political parties in Belgium. You have to provide a similar evidence for all parties you renamed. And of course, the best if you could have found a good reference an added the correponding text into the article Political parties in Belgium. - Altenmann >t 02:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * RTL: "Le petit Sociaal-Liberale Partij espère atteindre[...]". The SLP has received very little attention in French language media, so there aren't many examples. It is often just given as the SLP, or with an explanation of the name added (using soocial libéral in lowercase, not uppercase, because it is an explanation, not an official name). Please notice that the exception given for the Basque party is a party which has a bilingual name and abbreviation for itself: "The party typically refers to itself as EAJ-PNV". The SLP is always called SLP, never PSL. It's a bit ridiculous to translate a name when the abbreviation is always the Flemish one, even if by coincidence the English name would give the same abbreviation. Furthermore, it is not consistent to have some Belgian parties translated and some untranslated. Fram (talk) 07:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * re:very little attention in French language media - in this wikipedia we follow he rules and traditions of trhe usage in English language and English wikipedia. I know many examples when other wikipedias have naming conventions different from en:. - Altenmann >t 17:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * not consistent... some Belgian... - I know a number of other countries (even monolingual ones) in which some party names are traditionally translated, and some are not, see Category:Political parties in Israel, in Russia, in France, to name just few first popped up in my mind. - Altenmann >t 17:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Once again, please provide reliable references about usage conventions, not just examples of usage. - Altenmann >t 17:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think such sources exist, one way or the other. Strong indications are e.g. this official document of the federalk government: completely bilingual, it doesn't translate the party names (page 2, top). This isn't exceptional but the standard, e.g. and the Annals of the Senate. Absolutely not a reliable source, but another indication, is that the Dutch language Wikipedia does not translate the names of the Walloon parties, and that the French language Wikipedia does not translate the names of Flemish parties. For the SLP, it's hard to get much info because it has hardly received any attention in the French language media: but for the larger parties, it is very clear that e.g. Open VLD does not become LDF Ouverts (Ouvertes?), and that the MR does not become the Hervormingsbeweging. About the only that such translations appear is when a party changes it name and the press wants to explain what the new name means (hence some references to the "parti social liberal" about the SLP). But overwhelmingly, both official documents and the press use only the original name, no matter what the language is of the rest of the text. Fram (talk) 06:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Pirate Party
Someone should add it somewhere in the list. 91.179.180.242 (talk) 17:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Difference between different parts of Belgium + implication for the parties
I think that it should be more clear that the different parties (like VLD in Flemish-part and MR in Frenchspeaking-part) are just equivalents. Meaning that they are not "brother party" like it used to be.

I mean that when Belgium was a united country, the was only 1 Labour party, 1 Liberal party, and so on. Since it is a Federal state (not exactly since that, but it's to explain the facts), the parties splitted into two parties (and not two branches of a same party).

So, for example, the VLD is completely independent of the MR, and the PS is completely independent of the SPA.

I think the unique exception is the communist party (Parti du Travail de Belgique). But must be confirmed on this point... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julienadam (talk • contribs) 09:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of political parties in Abkhazia which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)