Talk:Vlaams Belang/Archive 2

Vote for Deletion
I have watched this development and discussion of this article for some time now. It is clear that this article is going nowhere. It is not encyclopedic, it is not neutral, partisan, it is dominated by one user who sits on this article like a goose on her eggs. Anybody trying to make changes is baing questioned and called a vandal. It is becoming more of a political lat night TV show discussion rather than a factual NEUTRAL presentation of a political party, its members, its policies, its history, founding, participations in elections, ... etc etc etc It contains dubious research and one sided claims. --Ratatouille 08:50, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Deleting the article isn't really an appropriate step to take in this situation. Instead, I suggest Resolving disputes. At the moment the article needs a lot of work to come up to wikipedia standards, and clearly there has been a big dispute over what should be in it. I've read most of the talk page which seems more of a discussion of Belgian politics rather than a discussion of how to improve the article. I suggest that we should stick solely to improving the article and not discussing the current state of affairs in Belgium.  All parties should also make sure we know what we're trying to achieve in the article, that is, a balanced, netural, unbiased, informative article. It has to present both opposing views and all sides of the argument, regardless of our own particular views. -- Joolz 17:18, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Indeed there is a goose who is sitting on it's eggs, like rataouille stated. Looks like that dude is unemployed or something, but like a moral-knight he defends his favorite politic party by changing every comment that criticises the Vlaams Belang. Pethatic, but so is Vlaams Belang itselfs.

Anyway, isn't there a possibility to make paté of that goose and keep this page realistic?

Recent major rewrite
I've substantially reduced the content in the article in an effort to make it conform to wikipedia npov standards. However, there may have been some parts which weren't neccessarily POV but may have gone into too much detail. I'm not expert in Belgian politics, but hopefully I've made a good start where we can work on. I think I've made it conform to NPOV standards, and therefore I'd obviously prefer it not to be reverted. If there's NPOV information on the old article, by all means incorporate it into the new one. -- Joolz 18:07, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This rewrite looks much much much better, I think the article is now in much better shape and more informative. --Ratatouille 18:57, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * For the time being, I only want to make some minor corrections. I’ll see afterwards, whether there is in the omitted parts still something interesting and encyclopaedic at the same time. --Jvb – April 14, 2005


 * I've incorporated the addition you made into the members section, however I've reverted some of your changes to the article, because I found them to be in conflict with wikipedia's NPOV policy (with additions such as "mere" and "huge"). I've also tried to adept the Brussels problem which your version mentioned, and added 'attempts' back in. Some of the edits I've made were to clean up the english as well. -- Joolz 13:10, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you.


 * But all rubbish (pencils, cigarette lighters…) with the motto “Eigen volk eerst” from the old Vlaams Blok are now really thrown in the waste basket and the expression is nowhere been used anymore. BTW using this expression by Flemish Interest would certainly generate condemnations for hate-speech, the end of party funding and the party’s end itself.


 * As far as the “transfers” are concerned, it can be formulated in a neutral way because they are relatively bigger than between former East and West Germany and growing.


 * Pensions: “investment fund” is important to note, because they have the same aim as President Bush in America. --Jvb – April 14, 2005
 * My understand is that the motto Flemish Interest uses currently is the same one which the Vlaams Blok used before it was disbanded? If i'm wrong on that please correct me! I think the part about transfers should be left how it is, because "huge" is a relative and one persons view on how big something has to be to be "huge" can easily differ to someone else's. At the moment the sentence says that the transfers happen, but makes no judgement about them, and it should stay that way to remain NPOV. As for the investment fund part, you're right and i've now added that back in. -- Joolz 13:47, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It is not possible to find the motto “Eigen volk eerst” any more in Flemish Interest.


 * I don’t insist about the transfers, but what I mean with "relatively bigger" is in fact “amount of money per capita”. This is neutral. It’s up to you to decide.--Jvb – April 14, 2005


 * I've mis understood then, if they don't use the motto, then we shouldn't say they do. I thought by "has been left" you meant that it hasn't been changed, rather than it being left behind and scrapped. The problem I have with the transfers is it's such a big issue that to pass any summary statements on it, other than mentioning it as an issue, is going to cause problems. As for it being up to me to decide... wikipedia is about concensus building, it's no more up to me to decide than it is up to you or anyone else, however the best article is one which is neutral and has contributions from everyone. -- Joolz 14:52, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On the motto's question, it is still mentionned on Vlaams/Flemish Blok 's website, which is still up. Even though, indeed, there is no mention of it I could find in Flemish Interest's publications. --FvdP

Votes for deletion
This page was recently nominated for deletion, and the consensus decision was to keep it, merge it with another article, and/or redirect it to another article. The deletion debate is archived here. ugen 64 21:15, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Link by link
I agree the article now looks reasonably neutral. However many externals links are still inappropriate or problematic in my eye, and I'd like to get Joolz' (or anyone else's) opinion on these. General arguments:
 * Neutrality. To what extent should POV or otherwise less-encyclopedic links be accepted ? Shouldn't they be put in context ?
 * Some of the links are accessible only to paid subscribers of some newspaper or site. What is Wikipedia's policy on this ? Is it OK that a Wikipedia reader/contributor cannot assess their value without paying ? I'd say such links should not be included (or perhaps in a dedicated section ?).
 * One can wonder if links to newspaper articles are really appropriate as they seem to eventually become "subscribers only" (except the Washington Post ones ?).
 * Dutch links: only links of upmost interest and originality (= lack of english equivalent) should be included, IMO. People who can read dutch can get more links through the article on the dutch wikipedia.
 * Several of the links are to blog entries, is this deemed appropriate ?
 * Jvb is (AFAIK) the author of one of these linked blog entries (at MajorityRights under pennames "Johan Van Vlaams"), with 99.99% certainty in my eyes even though he denies it (I'm quite prudent before stating hypotheses like that, proof lies in Wikipedia's history of Talk:Vlaams Belang and Talk:Eurabia, where Jvb - at first under I.P. - originally pasted verbatim copies of these blog entries and later signed them). It's probably not much of a problem in itself that a contributor links to its own articles elsewhere, except that all these blog entries mostly represent Jvb's opinion (with selected facts to support them), presented in an opiniated way, and how encyclopedic is that ? (Well, sorry if this sounds like a "personal attack", anyway the identity of Johan Van Vlaams is only a secundary question here. Contents counts first.)
 * The explanation is perhaps easier than supposed. In the beginning I simply wasn’t registered yet as a user. That’s not uncommon for a beginning Wikipedian. But Mr. Sherlock Holmes should also remember that I already explained him that the MajorityRights secretariat gave me unconditionial copyrights, at least as far as that Johan Van Vlaams person is concerned. For further explanation see below at Mr. Joolz’s remarks. --Jvb – May 6, 2005
 * You are Johan Van Vlaams. Faced to direct questions you play as if you were someone else, but without such pressure you (used to) act as if you were the same person. Proof below. And you seem to share the same initials. If that's not sufficient, I've got more arguments. --FvdP 19:50, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
 * More arguments? Same initials? It looks like a variety show. I really had hoped that this discussion would have stopped. Everybody can easily see that there is a big difference. Jvb (me) is a simple amateur, while Johan Van Vlaams is top-class. Judge by your own, then I gathered some of his texts with a link to Belgium, Flemish Interest and/or the Netherlands. Don’t you remark the difference with my broken English? --Jvb – May 9, 2005
 * What I see is that you're lying. I had hoped you would stop pretending. I see no big difference between you and JVVlaams. Yet another coincidence, I see you're both "external sympathetizers" of the VB. And, one more killer argument: if you're not JVVlaams, how do you interpret the following sentence written by JVVlaams on December 20, 2004 : I have had a recent disagreement with the Wikipedia writing staff, or one of them anyway.  An encyclopedic sounding of the world should preclude political bias, and as far as Vlaams Blok/Belang is concerned these guys don’t. ? Compare with the history of [Talk:Flemish_Interest http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Flemish_Interest&action=history] or [Flemish_Interest http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flemish_Interest&action=history] soon before this date. If JVVlaams is not 193.190.120.66, who is it ? If "one of them anyway" does not designate me, who does it designate ? The continuity of the discussion between 193.190.120.66 / Jvb and me proves 193.190.120.66 = Jvb, in case you try to attack my argument of this. Well, enough of this, if faced to such evidence you persist in pretending you're not JVVlaams, what can I do ? It's not that important anyway, as long as you don't add links to JVVlaams's blog entries in articles. --FvdP 18:32, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Johan Van Vlaams disagrees with you. So what? This only proves that he (sometimes) follows our (you and me) discussion. BTW we both (he and me) are critical as to the outcome of “liberal” policies, liberal in the American sense. The same as Vlaams Belang. But Vlaams Belang sympathisers??? At any event I won’t express me in his place. --Jvb – May 11, 2005

Now the links: I don't understand why you add a referenced to a site that's clearly just put up to write as negative as can be to the Vlaams Belang? I think this doesn't fit in this wonderful encyclopedia. But of course I do understand, because you're french speaking and that explains a lot!
 * Official web page
 * OK. --FvdP
 * Official Vlaams Belang party manifesto
 * OK provided the text is reasonably official, else the non-officiality should be stated (at least). --FvdP
 * BlokWatch
 * Added by me. Informative, even if not 100% NPOV. --FvdP
 * Why ? Should the encyclopedia only publish VB-friendly links ? But of course I understand, you're probably a VB sympathetizer and this explains a lot. --FvdP 17:23, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Vdare.com: Anti-Immigration Party Banned In Belgium November 09, 2004
 * Maybe acceptable. Blog, mildly not neutral. --FvdP
 * MajorityRights: The Blok is dead. Long live the Vlaams Belang? November 09, 2004
 * ? "Johan Van Vlaams"'s blog. Biased. --FvdP
 * Biased? This is nothing more or less than a message from Frank Vanhecke MEP, Vlaams Belang president, concerning the founding of their new party, with a short introduction by Johan Van Vlaams. There also is nothing mysterious about it. --Jvb – May 6, 2005
 * Vanhecke can't count as unbiased ;-). I agree Vanhecke's message may have some interest. But an english translation of Vanhecke's is available on VB's website, here, and that link should be preferred. --FvdP 19:50, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the improvement. --Jvb – May 9, 2005
 * BBC: Blow to Belgium's far right 9 November, 2004
 * OK. --FvdP
 * Telegraph: Flemish party banned as racist by Belgium's high court 10 November, 2004
 * Biased (and some factual details are inordinately incorrect: for instance Verhofstadt and his party are far from facing annihilation). Maybe appropriate though if balanced by other POVs. --FvdP
 * Factual incorrect? Altough it is not my mission to”defend” the honorable Telegraph, I give to your consideration the following article (in Dutch): http://archief.telegraaf.nl/artikel.fpl?id=477361&pagina=0&query=vlaams&alleenrecent=on&bron=alles in which is stated that following an internal VLD popularity poll, prime-minister Verhofstadt’s party actually “crumbles” to 14% of the vote intentions, compared to 28% for Vlaams Belang. At least in Flanders this was broadcast even on television. Not in your French-speaking community? --Jvb – May 6, 2005
 * 14% is still far from 0%. --FvdP 19:50, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Is meant: annihilation of power. This is politics, not mathematics! A political party needs a critical mass. Moreover, there is no indication that the present VLD decay is about to stop. And in Belgium the electoral system favours big parties. Once there were inverse proportions between VLD and Flemish Interest. --Jvb – May 9, 2005
 * Anyway. This position relies on extrapolations to the future, interpretation of the reality, and so can't count as objective. end-of-disussion (the discussion here has been drawn into discussing a small detail so that the relation with the big picture and the original question about the link has been lost, again.) --FvdP 19:01, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * If the VLD systematically loses its electorate to Vlaams Belang, this is no peanuts for a political party! --Jvb – May 11, 2005
 * The Washington Times: Analysis: Makeover for Flemish far-right November 15, 2004
 * OK. --FvdP
 * The Mail on Sunday: A new war in the fields of Flanders 19 November, 2004
 * Paid subscribers only. --FvdP
 * Altough there is a short introduction, I admit that this link is a candidate for deletion. --Jvb – May 6, 2005
 * The New York Times: Fear of Islamists Drives Growth of Far Right in Belgium February 12, 2005
 * Paid subscribers only. --FvdP
 * The Washington Times: The emerging ‘Eurabia’ February 18, 2005
 * Not appropriate. Not related to the VB in any other way than supporting (J)vb's opinion on "Eurabia". --FvdP
 * Is important. this is a reaction to the former New York Times article. Afterwards the New York Times even reacted with a second article (see below) to the Washington Times' one. Then finally it was the New York Sun that reacted to the second New York Times article. BTW, if one of the world’s most important newspapers such as the New York Times  dedicates two features about the same issue in the same week, then who are you to claim that this is not important enough to link to and (trying to) explain?. I fear you didn’t grasp the problem. That in Antwerp some thens of thousands of Jews tend to move rightwards in a political way might perhaps not seem to be so important to Belguim, but remind that half New York is Jewish and if these people would do the same… --Jvb – May 6, 2005
 * So you don't deny it's only weakly related to the VB. We don't need to populate the links lists with endless reactions-to-reactions... Specially not this one which is quite oriented. On the factual importance of the matter: "what if"s are no arguments, furthermore this is an article about the VB, not about New-York... By the way, I agreed elsewhere that we can add a mention of VB's jewish electorate to the article. (But be NPOV.) --FvdP
 * The importance is incorporated in the whole. I wrote a section about the Jewish component combining some links. See: Polemic in the American press (later deleted).--Jvb – May 9, 2005
 * The New York Times: Europe's Jews Seek Solace on the Right February 20, 2005
 * Paid subscribers only. Only partially related to the VB. --FvdP
 * MajorityRights: Jews moving Rightwards February 25, 2005
 * Copy of the beginning of the above article with a link to it, and only a passing mention of the VB. + readers comments. The only point of including this here, is to sustain the idea that VB also appeals to some Jews. I think a mention of this in the article (if true) should suffice. --FvdP
 * TIME: Life On The Front Lines: In Antwerp, the far right is facing off against muslims. Who's winning? Vol.165 No.9 | February 28, 2005
 * Haven't read it, won't judge for now. --FvdP
 * The New York Sun: Slap at European Jewry Prompts Backlash March 3, 2005
 * Not appropriate. Too opiniated IMO. And it's about Eurabia, not VB (with only a passing remark on VB's jewish electorate). And it's a refutation of another article : just a small opiniated part of a bigger discussion... --FvdP

Links in Dutch

 * Vlaams Belang: America discovers us 23.02.2005
 * ? maybe interesting, but biased and POV, of course. --FvdP
 * Macroeconomic policies February 2005
 * Not interesting enough (for a dutch link). It's just an invitation to a Vlaams Belang congress ! --FvdP
 * There are certainly other texts about Vlaams Belang’s economic policies, but this text has the advantage of being a good summary. Also to note: at their website: http://www.vlaamsbelang.org/ one can see below a permanent banner about “ondernemend Vlaanderen”, “enterprising Flanders”. Only to show how important economics are for them. I don’t insist on keeping this link, but in the case it is removed, I would suggest to write a short separate subtitle in the article solely dedicated to this major issue in Vlaams Belang's platform  (such as already was the case in the old version). If you want so, I will do it. --Jvb – May 6, 2005
 * Then find something in english and add that. As I have proven, there is english contents on their site. --FvdP 19:01, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * But not about economics, probably because they don’t have an English electorate. So I fear I will have to make a little summary myself. Food for a thought. Perhaps next week or so. --Jvb – May 11, 2005
 * De Standaard: My kingdom for an alternative. Schwarzenegger, Bush and Flemish Interest. by Geert Buelens (uni. Berkeley and Antwerp ) March 18, 2005
 * Subscribers only. --FvdP
 * This is somebody who teaches in Berkeley and in Antwerp. The fact that he sees (in a rather large article) similarities between Flanders and the USA should somewhere, somehow be represented, I think. --Jvb – May 6, 2005

The BlokWatch link
They (the links) are also mostly in favour of the Vlaams Blok/Belang and apparented views but that is another question. Such unbalance can be solved by adding links to an opposite or different views. --FvdP 18:12, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * “Mostly in favour of the Vlaams Belang”? See below. Also reminds me  of your personal comments at:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Joolz - see section "Vlaams Belang" --Jvb – May 6, 2005
 * 1. This comment was not addressed to you, nor was it a part of any argument. I was expressing to Joolz some of the feelings I had. While I can understand your position, the link you make here is a personal attack: you attack me, instead of attacking my argument. Dismissed. --FvdP 19:50, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 2. Let me be more precise: before I added the BlokWatch link, and apart of a few links that looked neutral enough to me, ALL links were to content favourable to either the VB or some of VB's disputed views. --FvdP 19:50, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 1)To Mr. Joolz you describe me behind my back as “someone whose positions look to me so outrageous and often just despicable” and now you are pretending that it is me who attacks you…
 * But you are attacking me, regardless of what I say or don't say to Joolz. --FvdP
 * Attack? Your thoughts, but not as a person. BTW, that reminds me of what you intended to do with me the first time we met each other on this site (see the archived discussion)…--Jvb – May 11, 2005
 * Ah ah. Yet another personal attack coming from you ! Let's stop this game. About the thing you so opportunistically remember: where did it come from in the first place ? It came from an insinuation of yours about Walloons defending a position only because of the money. I answered too agressively, I admit. But it's hard to me to stay indifferent in the face of such under-the-belt arguments (which are BTW what I mean with "personal attacks": see "ad hominem"). --FvdP
 * Let's not get bogged down in disscussions which aren't helpful to improving the article! -- Joolz 20:15, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * 2) The Blokwatch link (BTW, I don’t see the English texts you indicate) represents Flemish Interest’s president Frank Vanhecke as a clown and now you are argueing that everything left of that is biased????
 * Are you representative for the other French-speakers? --Jvb – May 9, 2005
 * 2a. and now you are argueing: read my argument more carefully, I wrote before I added the BlokWatch link. I haven't said nor implied that BlokWatch is neutral. --FvdP 19:01, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 2b. (Someone who talks of "Stalinist Wallonia" is badly placed to complain about Vanhecke being called a clown or a fascist.)
 * Elaborated answer at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jvb : --Jvb – May 11, 2005
 * 2c. I don’t see the English texts you indicate: look better. --FvdP 19:01, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * "Sorry this content is not available in your selected language. You can select another language at the top of the page." That’s English indeed…--Jvb – May 11, 2005
 * You try to play with my feet, don't you ? On the right, you see a handful of english titles. Click on them and you go to english content.--FvdP 19:58, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Blokwatch doesn’t say everything

 * Pulling your leg? All-in-all, I currently found ONE English text under “column”, called “between facts and fiction”. It’s about a documentary about Vlaams Belang leader Filip Dewinter, called “Vlaamse choc” (Flemish shock) by Peter Boeckx aired on the RTBF on Sunday, January 30th 2005. The RTBF is the state controlled French-speaking Belgian television station.
 * OK, you may be right, but it would have helped if you had expressed yourself more directly the first time instead of, yes, pulling my leg, an expression I still consider appropriate in this case. --FvdP 17:01, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * But Blokwatch doesn’t say everything. I looked up two articles in the daily De Standaard about that documentary ( and in Dutch – registration) and at first sight some important remarks can be made.


 * Hilarious anecdote, but not mentioned in the Blokwatch text: when Boeckx was under way in his car to the press performance concerning his documentary, he heard that the show was cancelled and that the subsequent television broadcast was postponed. First some “changes” had to be done on the documentary. Was the documentary (note the black propaganda title) too advantageous for Filip Dewinter? At any event Boeckx himself already compared his reportage with the British literary classic Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. But nevertheless the RTBF top considered the picture too “advantageous” for Filip Dewinter. In the first De Standaard newspaper article is written that the RTBF simply admitted this! In fact the RTBF director Information agreed to broadcast the documentary, but it was the administrator-general himself who opposed. The administrator-general is a political appointment.


 * But the Blokwatch text is biased in other aspects too. A central clue in the Blokwatch text is, I quote:  “Look at Vlaamse Choc: the equally historical and hilarious excerpt that has Filip Dewinter saving his 70-points-program “for the future”, is much more convincing than any analysis a newspaper journalist could write about the issue.”  In the first De Standaard newspaper article is elucidated that the subtitle “pour l'avenir!” ( “for the future” - with exclamation mark) is much more far-reaching (and even tendentious) than what can be seen on the footage itself.


 * BTW, Vlaams Belang has a much larger public than the losers, skinheads and Nsv-students who are reviewed once again. And Blokwatch can cheaply write that afterwards there was no response from the Vlaams Belang headquarters, but Blokwatch once again “forgets” to say that after the broadcast there was a debate on television, but Dewinter himself was not invited… --Jvb – May 12, 2005


 * You also seem to select facts and interpretations, and I'm not wanting to lose much more time answering your long Johan-Van-Vlaamsish tirades. (This page is meant for discussions to improve the article, not for endless digressions.) For this one, remember (do you read me ?): I did not say BlokWatch was not biased. I say, at least, that it provides a refreshing point of view and refreshing information, precisely of the kind you won't find in Vlaams Belangs official publications nor in sympathetizers blogs. --FvdP 17:01, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Geez...you two should be married (it's possible now, in Belgium ;-). I mean, what is all this crap about POV external links? Well, yes, Blokwatch is heavily biased against, everyone being honest to himself can see that. and so are almost all other links (pro and con). So, yeah...maybe a true NPOV site/link won't be found...then just balance things out by equal POV links. simple as that.

That said, the article on the wikipedia seems rather anti then neutral, I must say. One thing that bothered me (and which I've corrected) was the insinuation that only "conservative" would or could find the trial politically inspired (notably by the Belgian politicians of the other parties which amended, again and again, the 'anti-racist' law). It is almost impossible to officially 'prove' that this was done with the specific intent of being able to prosecute the Flemisch Blok, but that it would seem overly naive to dispell that possibility. In any case, the claim/insinuation was false.

I have the same problem discussing things about the VB with friends whome are vehemently against the VB; the moment you are not fully against it, it's like you're a racist, or something. If it weren't for the fact they know I vote for the liberals (well, yeah, they're not all that great, but there is nothing better, IMHO) some of them might claim I'm a VB sympathisant (which I'm not). But that doesn't mean I can't actually look at the points the VB makes (some contra-VB's don't even bother) and decide that they are right in some cases, wrong in others, and probably hypocrite in still others. But I don't like the black/white mentality, and I don't like the social pressure which would make a person say he's against the VB, just because it's the VB. They might be a populistic, nationalistic party (two things I'm already not fond of), but it doesn't mean they are the devil or Hitler reincarnated, nor that they don't make sense with some claims and suggestions they make.

If more people would have this kind approach to the VB, maybe you guys wouldn't be arguing endlessly about the POV and NPOV of the text, constantly.


 * Hi there, I think the Block Watch link should be (re)added to the links. The fact that it has been removed several times indicates it is clearly a need in this article.  Shouldn't we vote or somethng about this? Julien Tuerlinckx 12:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I would prefer to keep the link to Blokwatch too. In Flanders Vlaams Belang has nothing to fear from those bigots, who indeed have no influence because of too marginal. But I remarked that Blokwatch perhaps might have some international influence. There are indications that they for instance feed the Guardian newspaper with disinformation. --Jvb – October 24, 2005

To narrow down the number of links

 * I think the best thing to do is to narrow down the number of links we have, there's no reason to overwealm the user with them after all. I've had a look at the relevent policies (Manual of Style (links), External links and also When_should_I_link_externally).
 * From reading these, I think it's best to remove the dutch language links completely (apart from the official website, if that's in dutch).
 * It says that linking to your own stuff is highly discouraged, so I think we should just follow policy (and hopefully that will avoid arguments) on this and the link to Jvb's blog be removed. (he can still link to it from his user page, ofcourse)
 * Getting copyrights is not the same as being the same person. You are a native English-speaker, although probably no CIA expert in comparative text analysis. But when you read my comments on the Flemish Interest discussion page and you  compare them with an at random Johan Van Vlaams text, do you really think that I am one and  the same? Don’t overestimate me! This really seems a weird discussion to me. --Jvb – May 6, 2005
 * The same text appeared here signed "Johan Van Vlaams" and here (purely Jvb's contribution) signed "Flanders - Johan - Jvb". The latter is a true signature, without any statement of copyright. There are other similar examples. Note also the beginning of Johan Van Vlaams' e-mail address. --FvdP 19:50, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Either way, it's a blog (isn't it?) and it's probably best to avoid linking to those if we can avoid it, and it doesn't disrupt the balance of the external links. -- Joolz 09:34, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I already made mention of the copyright authorisation before to you as soon as you asked me for it and as you are my only stalker and moreover it was you who transferred the texts about Eurabia, I didn’t see the problem at first. But now everything is OK. E-mail???
 * At any event there simply is no problem such a Mr. Joolz indicates, then you already let disappear Mr. Johan Van Vlaams’s text here too. --Jvb – May 9, 2005
 * There's nothing wrong with a POVed link, as long as the link description makes a clear statement which POV is represented - it suggests splitting it up into two sections
 * OK for the 2 sections. --FvdP
 * I hope that my text about the polemic has already solved this problem. --Jvb – May 9, 2005
 * The problem is not that important such as Mr. FvdP suggests. The Blokwatch and The New York Times are against. The Washington Times and The New York Sun are against The New York Times view. Vlaams Belang of course defends its own views and Johan Van Vlaams seems (because of his pen name) a Flemish nationalist, but not necessary a Vlaams Belang supporter. I think the reader is wise enough to understand this on his own. Moreover much of the articles are intertwined. It would be a loss to separate them. --Jvb – May 6, 2005
 * 1. The "politeness" mark "Mr" in "Mr FvdP" borders on a personal attack (using hypocrisy). Please avoid. --FvdP
 * I promise you that I will stop my charm offensive towards you. --Jvb – May 9, 2005
 * 2. I think it wouldn't be such a loss, as we don't need endless discussions about the pros and cons of VB. Perhaps 2 articles with opposite views are OK. --FvdP
 * See my comments about the polemic in the American press above --Jvb – May 9, 2005
 * I think the registration only links should be kept to a minimum, and where they're used we make sure it's explicitly stated. We probably have enough external links to not need these links, but we might need to retain a few for POV balance
 * --Joolz 19:15, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

A short description next to each link in the article would probably help understand why some links are here.


 * A pity it's a blog... we should find the article source: www.mrax.be Julien Tuerlinckx 12:21, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh great, I found the article on a nice website. Let's put it in the external links. Julien Tuerlinckx 12:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

should we split the external links ?
Organisational question: the external links could be splitted in different sections (e.g.: official / more or less neutral / pro / against / in dutch) ? (I'm afraid of disputes on which articles should go in the "more or less neutral" section... perhaps another title for this section would make things clearer.) --FvdP 18:31, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * See my remarks above. --Jvb – May 6, 2005

if Belgium were to split...
Question to Jvb, on your formulation of this: Some people, who support Flemish Interest, fear the loss of Brussels if Belgium were to split and the mainly french-speaking Wallonia were to enter into a union with France. does it mean Wallonia entering France is the only way from Flanders to "loose" Brussels ? Methinks Wallonia+Brussels can stay independent of France and Flanders thus still "loose" Brussels, hence my formulation with "for instance if" in place of "and". Or do you mean the people you mention do not fear the latter possibility ?

(And -- sorry yet another personal attack -- by "some people who support Flemish Interest" do you mean anyone else than yourself ? Who then ?) --FvdP 20:04, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The present formulation with twice “were” covers all possibilities accompanying a Walloon secession, with or without Brussels, with or without France involved. BTW it was Mr. Joolz who wrote: “Some people, who support Flemish Interest, fear the loss of Brussels if the mainly french-speaking Wallonia were to enter into a union with France.”, and this indeed seems the right conclusion. Also to note: because of its weak economy, Wallonia cannot survive as a stand alone. At that moment France sits at the negotiating table too.


 * What will happen to Brussels? I suppose Flanders will argue that it is Belgium’s successor, that Brussels lays in its territory and that the so-called Brussels parliament/city council has very weak competences… but here I will stop, as this is not the place to discuss such things. --Jvb – May 9, 2005


 * Let's not get into discussions of hypothetical situations. I wrote the sentence but if you think it misinterprets or misconstrudes the fears then is do you have a suggestion to improve it? Like I said, I'm no expert in Belgian politics. -- Joolz 09:22, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * As you seem to hesitate too, I reintroduced the words “for instance”. --Jvb – May 9, 2005


 * I think "for instance" only is somewhat better than "and, for instance". But both are OK. --FvdP 18:18, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Changes
I've made some changes as discussed above:
 * 'In dutch' external links: Removed completely - most readers won't be able to read them, those who can would probably mostly read the dutch version, which can have them if they want to.

-- Joolz 17:01, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Discussion about American press: Not really relevent in the scheme of things to VB - not very important to an encylopedic article about them. (How about we talk about electoral successes/failures or representation in elected bodies instead?). The paragraph seemed to be there so we could include or discuss some external links to American media, it didn't help explain or talk about VB though. It also failed to meet wiki POV standards in my opinion.
 * Other external links: Removed any link which requires registration - most people won't want to pay for to view the articles, it's best to keep the number of external links as low as we can.
 * Blogs: I removed the blog (for some reasons see above) mainly because it was a blog which are probably best not to link to in the first place (regardless of who did or did not write it)

Joolz, what do you think of "Emerging Eurabia" ? Should that link really be kept, on what grounds ? In my eye it is not a good link because it represents too peculiar an opinion, and is only incidentally related to the Flemish Interest. --FvdP
 * It's a tricky one to decide upon, but I think for now it should probably be kept because its from a reputable source and provides one set of views and gives some sort of context to the issues involved. I don't think simply because it only provides one POV it should be removed, but if it were to disrupt the balance of the external links then there may be a case. At the moment I *think* the balance is OK. -- Joolz 19:38, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Name
Should the page be at Flemish Interest or Vlaams Belang? Most of the media seems to refer to it as Vlaams Belang rather than Flemish Interest (some put a translation in brackets), if you do a search for both on .co.uk domains (to avoid searching dutch sites) Vlaams Belang returns more results than Flemish interest. If nobody objects I'll move the page. -- Joolz 07:51, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I prefer “Vlaams Belang” too. But if possible with a direct link at “Flemish Interest” to it. --Jvb – May 11, 2005
 * I too prefer "Vlaams Belang". Of course, we'll keep the redirect from "Flemish Interest". --FvdP 19:36, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Cordon sanitaire
After the Vlaams Belang was founded at the end of 2004, the question of signing a political “cordon sanitaire” agreement raised. But the outcome was NO. So it doesn’t exist. Here my explanation in fact should stop. Period.

But of course there are within the other political parties currently discussions what to do after the next municipal elections in 2006. Some say not to cooperate, others say cooperate with Vlaams Belang, such as the N-VA party. BTW the N-VA is a party that actually sits in the Flemish government. But that’s no “cordon sanitaire”. The outcome (cooperate or not cooperate) will, when there indeed is no formal “cordon sanitaire” agreement such as now, simply be determined by normal power building within democracy, in fact the polls. If you don’t understand that, I can give you other examples of “cordon sanitaire” against other parties. The VLD was long times undesired in a government because it was too Thatcherish…until they became too strong to keep away from power. The same now with CD&V: as long as “purple” was strong enough, they kept them out of power. Meanwhile “purple” (VLD + socialists) poured out its disdain for the CD&V. Belgian politics knows a strong use of words… And now we have come to the point that Vlaams Belang is Belgium’s biggest party and growing. BTW, Vlaams Belang currently has an economics platform that has much in common with the former VLD platform when the latter was “undesired” in government. I can conclude that the discussions we observe now are nothing more or less than about the interaction between majority and minority within democracy in the run-up to the next Belgian municipal elections in 2006…but no “cordon sanitaire”

But perhaps your “problem” is that you simply want to see back a reference to the fact that some people insist on calling Vlaams Belang “far-right” for current political use? That’s no problem. I placed back our former reference  to professor Defoort’s text . At your service. --Jvb – May 27, 2005

Page Moved?
Why was this page moved? Alarix 18:24, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * "Vlaams Belang" was thus renamed as "Vlaams Belang (political party)". But in my opinion this is a clever trick to circumvent and undercut the proper Wikipedia rules. Every time people now search for Vlaams Belang, they also are directly confronted with the so-called "Vlaams Belang asbl", because they have to choose at the disambiguation page between both names, although both have a different name, "Vlaams Belang" and "asbl Vlaams Belang vzw", see web-site :http://www.vlaamsbelangasbl.be/www.vlaamsbelangasbl.be/ and the (meanwhile former) disambiguation page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASBL_vlaams_belang_VZW


 * As its name already indicates, this “Vlaams Belang asbl” organisation, or in fact “asbl Vlaams Belang vzw”, has no other aim than  to oppose or to harass the Vlaams Belang political party. It is the Walloon and French-speaking, partly governmentally subsidized, equivalent of the already mentioned (see the External links at the Vlaams Belang article) Flemish BlockWatch.  But, in my opinion, it  would have been more correct for the individuals who have introduced this new “Vlaams Belang asbl” article, to have tried one’s luck at the Vlaams Belang External links itself and simply have proposed to Wikipedia Encyclopaedia an extra link to the “Vlaams Belang asbl” or more correctly the “asbl Vlaams Belang vzw” web-site.


 * Why didn’t they do that? I only can guess. But the most probable reason is that in that case the new “Vlaams Belang asbl”, or better “asbl Vlaams Belang vzw”, link would probably have been removed by a Wikipedia administrator simply because the “asbl Vlaams Belang vzw” is a pure non-Enlgish site, see the whole of the discussion about links to non-English sites above on this discussion page.


 * I therefore would advise not to give in and to revert the page move.


 * --Jvb – August 09, 2005


 * rv: done --Jvb – August 10, 2005

Wrong information about Vlaams Belang
This article contains some serious mistakes about Vlaams Belang (VB). Some examples:


 * VB does not support "restricted immigration" but does support the deportation of women wearing a muslim headscarf
 * VB is not a new party, but is the same as Vlaams Blok, the party that was condemned for racism in 2004.Vlaams Belang is only the new name of the party

These are two major mistakes in the first lines of the article. Therefore the article is absolutely not NPOV


 * Support the deportation of women wearing a Muslim headscarf??? This is the most ridiculous thing I ever heard. Please give your source.


 * Of course Vlaams Belang is a new party.


 * --Jvb – August 16, 2005


 * Let's see cites for your claims please. -- Joolz 18:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Info on Blokbuster
Anti-fascist group that monitors the flemish far-right-winged parties and neonazi groups scene (for example in the UK: Searchlight).