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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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.