Talk:Party for Freedom/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

Shouldn't this page be moved to Wilders Group? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benne (talk • contribs) 17:05, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that the party will be renamed when the elections come around. That'll probably be a good time to rename the article. Right now I'd leave it where it is. Jacoplane 17:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Saying that Group Wilders is 'close to the neoconservative movement' is bogus. Neocons have a very different strategy than Group Wilders. E.g. after 9/11 Bush kept describing Islam as a 'religion of peace' and supported Turkey's entry into the EU, presumably with the rest of the Arab world to follow after successful regime changes. By contrast, Group Wilders is consistently critical of Islam and opposes Turkish EU membership. And with the Muhammed cartoons, Group Wilders were keen to pick a fight with the entire Islamic world, whereas Neocons condemned the cartoons. It's also worth pointing out that Neocons were in vocally in favour of intervening to protect Kosovan Muslims from Serb Nationalists, something which is hard to imagine Group Wilders doing.

Group Wilders is much, much more hardline than the Neocons. Their argument is with the entire Islamic world. Neocons want to fight al Qaeda, but they plan to keep the majority of the Islamic world to be uninvolved in this fight, and reach some modus vivendi with them if and when they win. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.65.17.30 (talk) 01:18, 23 March 2006‎ (UTC)

I think it can safely be said that Group Wilders is a far-right party with neo-nazist views regarding foreigners and even some other issues. 62.238.92.181 15:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

References

I marked two elements of the article as needing a particular citation - I can't read Dutch, but I find myself doubting that those two particular claims are in the citations. If someone can point me to where those two claims come from, I'd be most grateful. Captainktainer * Talk 08:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Link Group Wilders

shouldn't the link to Group Wilders be erased because it is a redirect to this article? I couldn't get it done

 Edit: forgot to sign (in)--Sikory 13:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Graus

Start a Dion Graus article if you want, but this here is out of place, it is simply irrelevant up to this point. Do we need to mention in the GroenLinks article as well that people claims Duyvendak was involved with the terrorist Ra-Ra group (HP/De Tijd, 22 july 2005) or Karimi's support for Iranian terrorist groups (Karimi, Het geheim van het vuur)? Of course not, this should be dealt with in the Wijnand Duyvendak and Farah Karimi articles, since this has not affected Duyvendak's or Karimi's parliamentary work, only their reputation, unlike in the case of Sam Pormes. Intangible2.0 10:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that like the LPF, the PvdV has recruited people with a bad reputation, is encyclopedic and useful for this article. Furthermore while there is a Karimi article, on wikipedia there is no Graus article. C mon 13:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced of its relevance here in this article (and certainly not in the respective section), and I don't think the comparison with the LPF holds, also because the media did not make this comparison. Intangible2.0 12:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Intangible2.0, you have vandalized this page again with regard to Graus, be prepared for mediation. V8rik 18:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I've waited two days to make this change. That is not vandalism. Intangible2.0 19:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Intangible2.0, more than once you have vandalized this page: please do not delete valid material, you have not accepted an opportunity for mediation, that is your choice.
• The article in NRC Handelsblad on Dion Graus is valid
• feel free to start a Dion graus article but do not bother me with it
• I feel Dion Graus does not warrant its own article, he is too insignificant as a personality
• even if someone starts a Graus article, the material on Graus still has a place in the Party for Freedom article because it gives information on the persons elected in this group.

V8rik 22:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I've not vandalized this page. That's just a cheap smear. I've not accepted RFM, simply because there was no RFM to start with. Anyways, a Dion Graus article will survive WP:Notability, and can provide for actual context (i.e. what Graus thinks about these allegations and whatever not). Your insistence in putting this information into this article is WP:NPOV, because it removes the neutral tone in which this article is written so far. Intangible2.0 22:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Intangible2.0. --Checco 08:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The Dutch justice department reported that three counts filed against Graus were dismissed [1], without going into details of the others. That bit about Graus is simply hijgerig, out of tone and needs to be put in the Dion Graus article at best. Intangible2.0 22:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

everything said about Graus is verifiable, apart from PVV Graus is a nonentity, the info stays in, even if it's stuff you don`t like to hear. Feel free to call Duijvendak what you will, as you long as you can verify it. --Isolani 11:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability does not mean relevancy. It is out of tone. Intangible2.0 18:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

it is verified, relevant enough for NRC to write on and I don`t think that censorship is called for. Allegations of illegal and antisocial behaviour are relevant especially in the case of lawmakers. If you continue to remove allegations I will seek mediation. --Isolani 08:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

fourtuynism?

Thinking things over, I am unhappy with calling the PVV fortuynist, apart from my questions whether or not 'fortuynism' is an ideology, I do not think the PVV is a successor party to one of the LPF splitoffs, that former fortuyn supporters voted PVV does not consitute enough reason to label the PVV fortuynist, input would be appreciated. --Isolani 09:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

No takers? --Isolani 11:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I am in favour of keeping this link because of the clear influence the Fortuyn revolt has had on the thinking of Wilders and his rise as a party. Further more, there is considerable debate about his ideology and saying that his program is the same as Fortuyn's for me comes closest to reality. C mon 11:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, every party in the Netherlands has been affected by the Fortuyn revolt, to some extent at least. A case could be made in this regard to label the VVD Fortuynist (vis-a-vis the role played by Rita Verdonk) which would be nonetheless an improbable label. Whether or not the party programme is Fortuynist is begging the question as, as I remember, most of the LPF party programme was copied verbatim from the VVD, at least the financial and economic paragraphs. Last of all, it does not consider itself to be in the 'fortuynist' circle. My two cents --Isolani 11:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I`m being bold and removing fortuynism , quite willing to reinstate for pressing reasons. Also dutch wiki doesnt seem to class PVV as fortuynist --Isolani 17:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

prohibiting the koran

In a letter to the volkskrant, published on august 8, 2007, wilders called the koran a fascist book and compared it to hitler's mein kampf. He claimed he wanted to prohibit the 'use' of the book in homes and mosks, practically eliminating the legal practice of muslim faith. He later repeated his statement in parliament. Is there a reason for the absence of this rather bold statement on this page? 86.91.160.200 04:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

See Geert_Wilders#Position_on_Islam. I think he did not speak on behalf of the party.--Patrick 06:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Assessment

This is a fairly well developed article. Some issues need to be solved before it can be taken further. First and foremost, the flow o the prose is not good, new arguments jump in. Also some balance in pro and con has to be found in a less obvios way. Arnoutf (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

out of context quote

The Spruyt quote is out of context, the actual Dutch text is somewhat more nuanced. If you want to expand on this, you need to add the reply by Lucas Hartong as well [2], otherwise it hard to see this not as a bad faith edit. Intangible2.0 18:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Nu wordt het woord ‘fascisme’ vaak gebruikt als een demoniserend label; vooral de vijanden van Fortuyn hebben het destijds als wapen tegen deze grote politicus ingebracht. De zaken die Kolnai opvoert als typering van het ‘paniekconservatisme’ (wat dus een tussenfase op de weg naar fascisme kan zijn) zijn niet alle op de PVV van toepassing.

Voor een belangrijk aspect geldt dit echter wel: de zowel on-conservatieve als on-liberale neiging, en vooral het toegeven aan die neiging, om bij ieder probleem dat zich aandient onmiddellijk en uitsluitend de gewelddadige arm van de staat te hulp te roepen. Bij de PVV wordt de staat een almacht toegedicht en toegekend die in het federalistische denken van liberalisme en conservatisme niet bestaat. De macht van de staat is daar altijd begrensd door checks and balances, waaronder de macht van lagere overheden en de grenzen van de Grondwet.

I don`t see how Spruyt is qouted out of context, his statement stands as it is, all he says is that the emphasis in said article wasn`t on the PVV in particular. There is therefore no good reason why spruyt's remark should be removed from the PVV wikipage. The Hartong article is exceedingly uninteresting and shows a deep ignorance of conservative thought, furthermore I do not think H. has any formal connection to PVV apart from having failed to secure a seat in parliament as PVV candidate. --Isolani 14:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The current text does not reflect at all what Spruyt was saying. "Dat is vervelend omdat een machtige SP Nederland in een rode hel zal veranderen, en omdat de PVV de belichaming van een paniekerig soort van conservatisme is dat een middenpositie tussen prudent conservatisme en fascisme inneemt met een natuurlijke neiging tot de laatste stroming." is not the same as "the PVV had a 'natural tendency' toward fascism," period. Spruyt's article, as you said, isn't about the PVV. In a further reply (http://bartjanspruyt.blogspot.com/2007/01/over-de-fascisme-analogie.html) he even said that not all points that Kolnai used to describe "panic conservatism" are applicable to the PVV. Furthermore, please do not just revert when a talk page discussion is going on, that is just rude. Intangible2.0 17:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

about as rude as deleting verified information without a talk page discussion? Furthermore, you are incorrect, when spruyt says the PVV 'has a natural tendency to the latter' (fascism) he says, explicitly that pvv tends towards fascism. stop weaseling. --Isolani 09:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not rude to revert back an inclusion of text into an article, by first wanting to discuss that text itself on the talk page. The editor who wants the texts in, first has to make an argument for inclusion. I haven't even heard of User:Qwertyus here. That's bad. Intangible2.0 22:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I have given reasons for inclusions above, in case you haven`t noticed. --Isolani 10:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Then why did you revert my expanded version?! Intangible2.0 18:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

because there is no reason for posting elaborate rebuttals of spruyt on this webpage, this is not a blog. It is sufficient to note that Hartong made said statements. (In fact I don`t even think we should, but I`m willing to indulge you) --Isolani 09:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Then all of the material goes. English language readers cannot refer to the Spruyt or Hartong texts, because they are in Dutch. Intangible2.0 08:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It is senseless to argue that 'all the material should go' , this argument would inevitably lead to a full delete of the entire page apart from the bits that can be verified in english. Replicating all of hartong's arguments would push the PVV article out of kilter and render it unencyclopeadic, same thing for Spruyt's article. The debate stays in. Spruyt calling the PVV what he did is undoubtedly relevant and if Hartong is the PVV's way of responding, so be it. But no 'long versions'--Isolani 10:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Not all information in this article referenced by Dutch articles is loaded. This particular opinion of Spruyt is. Fascism is a loaded term, and thus the argument Spruyt is making needs to be included as well. Intangible2.0 15:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

We've got Spruyt, we've got Hartong, and we dont have a page called Spruyt and Hartong Debate 2007 ; I don`t give two shoes whether or not Spruyt is right, what is important is that Spr. was intimately involved with the early formation of the PVV as a party, him now labelling it as a party 'developing towards fascism' or whatever is thus relevant, replicating the entire argument whether by Spruyt or Hartong will throw the article out of kilter, as I have stated before. --Isolani 17:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I have had to revert most of your edits, though have kept / restored the Graus link. I do not think however that the mere fact of there now being a Graus page merits the removal of the mentions of the allegations made against him as they now are part of the political context in which the PVV operates. --Isolani 08:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

What does that mean, political context? Graus did not have to resign. There are no guilty verdicts. Intangible2.0 08:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Remember the LPF? Main concern in the political context is the concern that the PVV , like the LPF will end up as little more than a syndic of gold-diggers, nutcases and crypto-fascists, serious allegations of sleazy private lives (which these are) are thus relevant 'in the context'. I`m not saying PVV is like the LPF in this regard, but signals that they might be, and that Wilders has been less than careful in his choice of candidates should not be ignored. Apart from charges, there was also the little issue of him refusing to divulge information about where he worked (which is strange for any candidate of any party) and the serious allegations made against him by frmr employers which are not of a legal nature but nonetheless posit causes for serious concern in a social / personal sense and do not bode well for the smooth operation of PVV parliamentary party. What should be remembered is that this is NOT , as it might be in other countries a 'smear' campaign perpetrated by a political opponent. NRC Handelsblad is the most rigorous newspaper in the country, at a par with The Times and the article was not published until a month after the election. --Isolani 11:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Leon de Winter wrote an article in Elsevier about the demonisation of Wilders. [3]. Intangible2.0 15:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

might be worth an edit in the PVV page. --Isolani 17:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

pov pushing

Is this really neutral: "Possible explanations for its current political fortunes could be widespread fear of muslims and islamophobia amongst the Dutch public in general[...]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.192.94.172 (talk) 10:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

If verified and relevant information continues to be deleted from this page I will have to post a POV tag. I hope this will not be necessary, but I won`t stand for these continued attempts at whitewash. --Isolani 08:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Intangible2.0 08:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

sorry I had to put my foot down on this one, I`m not looking for fights but am very sensitive to any edits which might be construed as POV, esp when it comes to a party with a dodgy fan base, I`m not saying you're part of that fanbase, so please dont consider this a personal attack. --Isolani 10:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The information was only moved to the particular article. That's not POV pushing. It's putting stuff where it belongs. Intangible2.0 15:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd say putting stuff where it also belongs —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Isolani (talk • contribs) 17:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

Please read this Volkskrant article. I also have a RFC [4] running, but no comments so far. Intangible2.0 12:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I hope that the way the section on Graus is currently phrased is NPOV, or at least as NPOV as possible. --Isolani 10:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Isolani. The integrity of politicians in a new party is highly relevant to the existance and nature of the party, see the collapse of the LPF as a recent example of how things can go wrong for the party. It's not necessary for such a long series of information to be in that list, though; saying that he was accused by NRC but that Justice dismissed it is enough. The line about the Volkskrant and the full trust of Geert Wilders are more specific information that should go in the Dion Graus article. Cayafas 02:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The current wording strikes me as accurate, though may be what could be added is the adjective "somewhat leftist" for the Volkskrant which may make the readers clear that de Volkskrant could not be expected to sympathize with Wilders, Party for Freedom, or Dion Graus. Andries 09:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Right Wing Populism? and other ideologies and positions

Do we perhaps think that this party's ideology is best described as Right-Wing Populism? I don't think Conservative Liberalism and Liberal Conservatism quite covers it as I think this party is far more radical on Islam than either of those ideologies accounts for. I think Right Wing Populism is the closest ideology. Similar listed parties are the Swiss People's Party, the Freedom Party of Austria and the Danish People's Party which I would argue are very similar to the PVV. Perhaps we could add it to the list of ideologies? Any other views? --CTerry (talk) 13:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Party for Freedom differs from FPÖ in that the former is still essentially a liberal party, the FPÖ has clearly been national-conservative since early 1990s. --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 14:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I also suggest that sources (preferably scholarly ones) are found for all those things crammed into infobox. --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 14:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The party is as much 'far-right' as the French Republican Alliance of Radicals and Radical Socialists was during their (anti-clerical) feud with the Catholic church. All kinds of POVs circulate in the web, however, describing liberal-conservative party as 'far-right' is not scholarly, to say the least. Random newspaper articles are usually not WP:RS, and at first glance the other source (Anne Frank Stichting) merely says 'De PVV kan als extreemrechts worden bestempeld' i.e. according to their POV the party 'can be labelled as extreme-right'. At best, you could argue in the main text, based on your sources that some of the party's positions are extreme (in the current political context), but there's clearly no consensus that the poilicies of the party concerned are generally 'extreme-right'. Besides that Anne Frank Stichting is just one foundation out of hundreds, apparently not even meriting an article in en.wiki. --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 14:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Far Right & Scholarly consensus

The Monitor Racisme & Extremisme of Leiden University calls the party far right. Miacek says that any such characterization would demand "scholarly consensus" without further proof of any scholarly source contending this claim, the judgement of the Monitor Racisme and Extremisme stands as a external, reliable, academic source. C mon (talk) 15:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Some stuff I found on web (yes, through a random search) easily let describe the party as right-wing populist [5], [6] or (national-)conservative [7], but far-right is simply cherrypicked. E.g. a google search with terms dutch+party+for+freedom gave less than 2000 hits. Making a phrase search for dutch+'far-right people's party' gives a few hundred (!) hits (as incidentally does a search for Dutch 'far-left socialist party'). So, some of the results from the very search also label the Socialist Party as 'extreme-left'. I wonder how would colleague Cmon react if I changed the SP position accordingly? There is reportedly no academic consensus with respect to PVV, besides, if there were some sort of consensus in the general public, we would have more hits. Google scholar has around 200 hits for 'party for freedom' and 30 hits for 'party for freedom'+far-right. No hits for 'far-right party for freedom' (phrase). --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 15:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

How does this refute the reliability or the verifiability of the statement of the Monitor Racisme & Extremisme of Leiden University? The source stands.

Moreover you assert that the "burden of proof" lies with me. I think that the burden of proof lies with you, namely that there are scholarly publications that characterize the PVV's political position (opposed to its political ideology) as anything but far right. You have not proven this so how can you claim the assertion is dubious or contentious?

I would propose to do the following: for all other Dutch parties the left/right positions are based on expert surveys. The Chapel Hill survey did not include the PVV. I known that Robert Rohrschneider's survey did include the PVV. But that is not published yet. I propose to wait with any characterization until we can find an expert survey that includes the PVV. C mon (talk) 15:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, regarding the first point I think you are wrong. WP:V is straghtforward: 'The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.' - I removed 'Far' (-right), you re-added. I challenged the source by saying that I don't think the one scholarly source you gave indicates any consensus. I couldn't find any accessible sources on scholar.google, however, I couldn't find anything substantial that would confirm that the majority of analysts regard the party's general position as far-right (I added links that describe things differently, too). I do agree with you in that ideologies and positions are a controversial thing here in wiki and the latter ones might sometimes be better left out. --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 16:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

As for alternative sources, there was an article entitled 'Illiberal Practices under the Veil of Multiculturalism' among the scholar.google hits. If it does also cover the PVV, you can fairly presume it does not position it the same way the Leiden University staff did ;-) --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 16:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

You removed sourced material, by saying that it does not reflect "consensus" but gave no proof that it did not. You gave no single source that contests or contradicts the removed source. All you gave were websites that made assertions about the party's political ideology, but made no claims to its position in the political spectrum.

I do not claim that political positions are controversial, but I think that we can both agree that they should reflect scholarly consensus, best found in an expert survey.

You have not given any proof that

C mon (talk) 16:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I really couldn't 'prove' that you don't have consensus, and I didn't have to. Though obviously all those sources that describe PVV as conservative or even liberal would not say its 'position' is extreme right/far-right. All of those contradict with your view, as incidetally does the positioning in the nl.wiki article. I found zero scholarly articles that treat the party and explain its position as far-right. You have not found any serious sources apart from one document from you university site that furthers your opinion here. I've said a couple of times already and say once more: one or two sources may not be enough to further a controversial/marginal/radical/just too committed an opinion. As you seem to be quite uncompromising, I'll have to ask for other users' opinion. --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 17:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

You would need to prove that Leiden University is a marginal organization then, because the only proof against this classification is that you don't agree and that your google searches did not turn up anything. And I have made a proposal for a compromise: no left/right position for now, until we can find more sources. Can you agree with that? C mon (talk) 18:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

C_mon, you comfortably forgot that I've given a number of weblinks/books.google links that describe the party otherwise. Besides, if there were a consensus on the party being far-right, you wouldn't have trouble giving more sources to prove what you would like to be in the article. --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 19:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I have not forgotten the links you provided. I have even incorporated them into the article! But these websites make no assertions about the party's position in the political spectrum and just about its political ideology. They do not refute the source!

It is very unlikely that there is a lot of published material on the PVV as the party is so new. Therefore I propose to wait with the classification until we find more sources C mon (talk) 09:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I understood that the University of Leiden cooperated with the Anne Frank foundation for this report and I think this cooperation with this lobby group gives some rise to doubt whether the report is value free science. I do not know much about politics but I have seen many instances of biased, non-value free articles by scholars and scientists, esp. in subjects in which they were emotionally involved (e.g. their own religious group). Andries (talk)

More sources seem like a good idea. Not just from lobby groups that fight extreme right and racism or left wing groups. Andries (talk) 19:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with Andries. --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 19:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

This is pure speculation, give proof that this source is unreliable, instead of just insinuating. The book is written by Leiden University researchers and published by an academic press. That makes it a far more reliable source than the google searches and newspaper articles that Miacek has given. C mon (talk) 09:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Assessment of sources is a matter of opinion and not so easy to prove. It is a fact that the report was coauthored with the Anne Frank foundation and it is a fact that the Anne Frank is a lobby group that fights right extremism and racism. See [8]Andries (talk) 07:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep. The notability of this group has not been ascertained, if it is an 'antifa' lobby group (like there many such groups in Germany), we could dispute its relevance here. This, however, is just one aspect. The main thing is: PVV has just been described as far-right by one institutions. There are books (which I referred to) that define it just as a liberal group (albeit with populist tendencies). Thus, common sense says that more 'committed' opinions (e.g. that it might be a 'a far-right group, or 'a fascist party', or, say, 'a party firlmly committed to laicism' or whatever) these are better left out, unless a consensus is presented, not just one source. So, obviously, for the time being I agree with leaving out the 'position' altogether. --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 07:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The point I have been trying to make, is that a party can be far right and be a liberal party with populist tendencies (BTW I haven't seen any good sources from you). As the first is the party's position in the political spectrum and the other is a political ideology. C mon (talk) 20:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Some time ago C mon wrote in my talk page about the PVV. He refuted its classification as nationalist and told me and Nightstallion that "it is part of a liberal tradition, and offers a liberal program which emphasizes secularism and low taxation". I still agree with that and I ask to remove any reference to "right-wing populism" or "far-right" in the article. C mon, did you change you opinion or did I misunderstand the issue? --Checco (talk) 13:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

My opinion does not matter. If there is a source that puts the PVV in the far right it cannot be removed simply because of speculation or the opinions of an editor. An academic, reliable, external source is a source, in which case my opinion ceases to be unimportant. Finally I made a statement about the PVV's political ideology, not its position in the political spectrum. Rightwing populism finally is based on a source which Miacek provided. I don't see a reason for deleting sourced material. C mon (talk) 23:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The source can and should be stated as an opinion in the article, because it is only one source. I do not agree with deletion of sourced material. Andries (talk) 20:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Working on the article should precede making conclusions in an infobox. Infobox should reflect the contents of the article.--Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 08:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add my humble contribution to this discussion. The Anne Frank Foundation and the Leiden University have stated in their report that the PVV has been moving recently into the far-right spectrum. This implicates that, because of the recent devellopments, there simply are not many sources yet who support this source. In the past year, so the report claims, the PVV has moved into more extreme opinions, mostly towards Muslims, causing the shift from right-wing-politics towards far-right. As a kind reminder, the Austrian FPÖ also shifted towards far-right under the leadership of Jörg Haider. On the other hand, a lot of social-democratic parties have also shifted from the left side towards the middle. Likewise, the position of the PVV in the political spectrum is also not static and can shift left or right. The report claims that there is a tendency that this shift is taking place in the PVV. I guess it would be wise to monitor the behaviour of the PVV in the next year to see where they truly stand. User:Brynnar/sig 09:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Wilders' ideology

The fight, for both the neo-conservatives and for Mr Wilders, seems to be with people who think differently. So, it's all-right to be a Muslim, so long as you're democratic and not too strict with the rules. I don't think, however, it's helpful to dwell too long on Mr Wilders' ideology. I think it would be fair to say that Mr Wilders is a right-wing conservative, although not in any organised philosophical manner. He dislikes Islam and immigrants in a way that many Dutch now do, which might not be meant to be racist but implicitly is (if judging people by their origin isn't racist, then what is?). Bart-Jan Spruyt of the Burke Stichting has recently lured Wilders into the conservative movement, and is called Wilders' ideologue. He (Spruyt) has as much as admitted that Wilders is not a keen reader or thinker, which would explain the patchy way Wilders explains "his own" ideas. To get to the point: Wilders definitely is right-wing, opposed to change in a national culture, and confident in the superiority of his own culture ("I believe our culture to be better"). As far as this is concerned, he could well be compared with Robert Kilroy-Silk. (I should warn the previous contributor against using the term "nazi": it is academically associated not with just an ideology, but with an ideology in a particular period in history. Of course, national-socialism, or solidarity with a particular nation or culture would describe his views well—it's just not done, serves no purpose.)

It is tempting to use the term "bigot" in stead; unfortunately the Dutch language has no equivalent (tellingly so).--Jacob... 11:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Wilders and his party are considered far-right by the authoritative study group of Leiden University and the Anne Frank Stichting (http://www.nos.nl/nosjournaal/artikelen/2008/12/10/101208_racismemonitor.html). 82.176.214.123 (talk) 18:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Fidna

I was reading the article, and I was thinking shouldn't there somethin be places about his "movie" Fidna? Fist of all because of the message in the movie and second of all becuase of the world wide media attention. A couple of months ago Wilders wanted to show his movie in the United Kingdom, however, when he arrived at Heathrow he was sent back to the Netherlands because he was a "tread to the security" (I'm not shure how it was exacly mentioned, but he was denied acces to the UK). I'm not a native speaker of English, so I find it quit hard to write something myself. Could maby somebody help me? Juudt (talk) 19:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

What does this have to do with this political party? It has its own article. Fortuynist (talk) 19:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Have added, it was funded by the friends of the party of freedom, and directed by it's leader, hence relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.148.42 (talk) 20:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

national conservatism

It seems that this is not a term used much in English language discourse, although I did find some references which used in a specifically German context. One cannot just import that context here into the English language Wikipedia, however. Intangible2.0 09:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I second this opinion. No one in Britain or the US talks about "national conservatism". Jstriker (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Accurate classifications should be used, regardless of their currency in particular polities. Many ideological currents are unique to one continent (e.g., Pan-Africanism), one country (e.g., Gaullism), or one region (e.g., Padanian nationalism); that does not mean we should obfuscate them by shunning non-Anglosphere terminology. Further, national conservatism is sometimes used in English. It is used to describe some Anglosphere parties (e.g., One Nation in Australia) and in some academic contexts (e.g., Daniel Webster and the Rise of National Conservatism). --darolew (talk) 05:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Libertarian Nationalist

There is nothing inherently conservative or right-wing about wanting to control immigration. Vladimir Lenin, of all people, wrote that the Soviet Union would need strict immigration controls because of its generous social benefits - or at least what he promised would be generous social benefits. And in fact, that makes perfect sense. If you're going to construct a cradle-to-grave welfare state, you absolutely need to control immigration. So it would seem that strict immigration control goes hand-in-hand with leftist, rather than rightist, policies.

It's meaningless to refer to PVV as "conservative" or "rightwing". Their program seems to combine elements of classical liberal or libertarian economic and social policy with Dutch cultural nationalism. Maybe "libertarian nationalist" would be the most accurate description. Wmoran9550 (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest to make a special section about the issue of classification (far right or populism or conservative). I also think that preferably for this question Dutch or scholarly sources should be used, because non-Dutch sources tend to simplify matters too much. To describe the PVV as far right as foreign sources have done may be simplistic. Andries (talk) 09:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

They are certainly not libertarian, in that they seek strong restrictive legislation on numerous subjects. The only ideological certainty is that they are authoritarian nationalists, and authoritarianism and libertarianism do not mix well. 82.176.202.53 (talk) 10:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Then again, they are hardly traditional 'authoritarians' if they support localism, freedom of speech, gay marriage, and abolition of the the minimum wage; obviously, they are authoritarian on immigration and drugs. The inescapable fact is that their position is very hard to label using the usual tags. Clearly, even excluding immigration (the 'libertarian position on which isn't easily defined), they aren't libertarian, as proven by their position on drugs and enshrining national 'Judeo-Christian' culture. I think 'national liberalism' is probably the best, although it has fallen out of use a lot, except to describe historical Romantic nationalist movements. Given this complication, we ought to stick as rigidly as possible to the reliable sources on the subject. Bastin 13:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is irrelevant; 'libertarian nationalist' is a neologism and cannot be used to classify the party, no matter how accurate it may be. However, as an aside, the use of the word 'libertarian' as intended by Wmoran9550—i.e., as an adjective—does not necessarily imply outright libertarianism, but perhaps a merely relatively libertarian nationalism; see libertarian Marxism for example an example of such adjectival usage of the word. --darolew (talk) 05:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The PVV has nothing to do with any definition of libertarianism. i have no idea where that would come from. futhermore, we usually label people by their ideologies, rather than defining ideologies by the people we choose to associate with it. maybe Vladimir Lenin is right-wring and/or conservative.· Lygophile has spoken 05:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Cultural conservatism vs. National conservatism

I would suggest switching National conservatism with Cultural conservatism in the infobox, since Wilders' main ideology seems to be far more concerned with a wholer "Western culture" rather than a strictly nationalistic "Dutch culture" (besides those issues that must concern any state of course). This can be seen in his unusual recurrent travels abroad to cooperate with fellow ideologues. The other ideologies seems appropriate though, including National liberalism. -TheG (talk) 17:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I've done that per WP:BE BOLD, and we can see if anyone disagrees. Bastin 20:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Movement or party?

I've changed the phrase "(...) is a Dutch political movement" in "(...) is a Dutch political party". This is, in my view, more accurate. Nietvoordekat (talk) 14:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not correct, because the PVV isn't a party. In the Netherlands, a political party is obliged to allow membership, to have votes on party platforms and nominations, and, most importantly, to make public the source of their funding. To avoid all these things, the PVV is a "stichting" ("foundation") with only one member: Geert Wilders. So while it acts as a political party, it isn't one. I agree that this is a perversion of parliamentary democracy.82.176.209.52 (talk) 13:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Dubious

Google books and google scholar search could not find me any sources verifying national liberalism and cultural conservatism. You might like to do some research to, maybe you are luckier. But actually, I fear that there are not any sources for these claims, as they could just be original research. Regards --RJFF (talk) 15:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

All the ideologies in the infobox except Anti-Islam, Right-wing populism and Euroscepticism are indeed nothing but original research. They should be removed asap, and then, if possible, be replaced by eventual other descriptions from reliable sources. Given that Geert Wilders is so dominant in the party (and de jure the only member), it might however perhaps be appropriate in this case to link directly to him and his views concerning the party ideology. Just a suggestion though. – Bellatores (t.) 15:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Ideology

Tho things (especially for C mon):

• the party is more conservative liberal than liberal conservative, indeed it fits perfectly with conservative liberalism, so I propose to put both ideologies;
• the party supports economic liberalism, including many libertarian issues (it "seeks tax cuts [...], de-centralization, abolishment of the minimum wage, limiting of child benefits and government subsidies", as is written in the article), so why not consider it libertarian?

In my opinion PVV is definitely a conservative liberal, libertarian, liberal conservative and fortuynist party. Anyway I am not from the Netherlands, thus the final judgement is not my task... --Checco 19:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You can't be a libertarian if you develop policy oriented against one specific religion (burqa ban, ban on islamic schools) or if you stigmatize one religious group: "there will be a tsunami of muslims" if we don't legislate against them. The party focused it campaign on one issue: fight islamization. A libertarian party can't be against a particular religion, because it advocates neutrality towards religions. C mon 20:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Libertarianism explicitly involves a dedication to personal freedom alongside the striving for a freeer market. The PVV clearly advocates the latter, but not the former, except when it is considered part of dutch, or western, culture. Just as some examples of very anti-libertarian policy straight from his programme for the last elections, one could mention the stern opposition to legalisation of certain soft-drugs, the equally stern resistance to the spread of Islam, the criminalisation of headscarves in public office and burqa's anywhere, the removal of legal equality from the constitution, and the mandatory community service for youth in high school. I would agree with a classification as conservative liberal, liberal conservative, national conservative (the PVV is very keen on national identity), and fortuynist, although Wilders himself has publicly opposed a classification as fortuynist. Cayafas 20:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand. Thank you for your answers, is there anyone who opposes the insertion of conservative liberalism? If not, I will put it as one of the ideologies identifying the party. Before I go, let me ask you another question: what is the PVV position on euthanesia and gay rights? --Checco 21:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

They're nowhere to be found in his programme or on his website, which I'd interpret as a general satisfaction with the current state of affairs. Do take note that, excluding the perspective of the hardline-christian parties (ChristianUnion and SGP), these issues aren't really of importance in Dutch politics; equal gay rights and a right to euthanasia are considered a given by parties all across the political spectrum. As a consequence, you can hardly measure the ideology of a party based on these issues. No objection to a classification as conservative liberal in addition to the current list of ideologies, especially considering the fact that the party leader Wilders used to be a VVD member himself. If it were to be listed as the only ideology, it'd give too moderate an impression of the PVV though. Cayafas 00:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

To begin with the PVV is a recent upstart; it is as yet not entirely clear whether or not there is even going to be a coherent ideology in the background. IMHO libertarianism is not really on the map for PVV considering its rather rabid law and order policies. Also Wilders' article "Een Nieuw-realistische visie" placed on the PVV site seems to show more convergence with conservative-liberalism than happy-go-lucky libertarianism. --Isolani 10:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I finally added "conservative liberalism" alongside "liberal conservatism" and "fortuynism". I would like to know what users think about adding "national conservatism" (as suggested by Cayafas) and "populism". Anyway I think that the current compromise ("conservative liberalism", "liberal conservatism" and "fortuynism") is good. --Checco 14:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I can live with national conservatism, although I'd prefer the page without it. Although it scores well on the three themes mentioned on the wiki (good for opposition to the EU, euroscepticism, and moderate for social conservatism: it supports gay rights and it emphasizes the roles of family)

Populism for me is completely off, as it isn't a political ideology but a political strategy, not that populism is not included in the political ideology article (by my actions btw).

Any way I can live with the current version. C mon 16:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, also for me it is good as it is. --Checco 19:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Fortuynism? Why is this claimed? Intangible2.0 20:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It is most likely claimed because of the electorate (which is for a lare part the same disgruntled, anti-immigration electorate that supported Fortuyn previously), and because he thrives discussing issues that were popularized by Fortuyn. His views are the closest to those of Fortuyn in current dutch politics. I think that the link to Fortuynism is probably justified, although not as strongly as the liberal conservative and conservative liberal ones. Cayafas 20:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

And what is the difference between liberal conservatism and conservative liberalism? Intangible2.0 21:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Liberal conservatives are conservatives with some liberal tendencies (and so they are the left of the conservative movement), conservative liberals are liberals with some conservative tendencies (the right of liberal movement). See liberal conservatism and conservative liberalism, you will find there explanations. --Checco 08:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that the national conservative label is justified, especially considering that Wilders' main campaigning points were a protection of the dutch 'judaeo-christian identity' and especially an extremely strong anti-immigration stance. Furthermore, as Isolani pointed out, the PVV is a recent upstart and we have yet to see in which direction it will go; leaving national conservative out here does not do justice to the possible directions for the PVV. Cayafas 20:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not object to labelling PVV Nat.Conservative in addition to other labels. --Isolani 13:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Being bold and adding it. Cayafas 22:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

One of the ideologies is secularism, this is plain nonsense. Secularism is a theory that religion should be extempted from the political system, if a party wants to change the first law of the constitution from: Everybody is equal, no matter what his race, religion, age, etc, etc. Into: Jews and Christians generally should have more rights than Moslims, it isnt called secularism. Secolndly: Prohibiting the Koran and trying to extemp the islam too are both good examples how secularism shouldnt be. Thus hereby removed from the list.

I second this and added a few of the things mentioned in the party program: jewish and christian schools are fine(page 29) to him and the judea christian roots should be anchored in the constitution (page 35)

85.145.85.189 (talk) 17:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, calling PVV a secularist party is nonsense. Wilders does not criticize religion in general; he criticizes Islam. Further, there were no sources backing up the claim; the three cited were all left over from the previous 'Anti-Islam' designation, and all called Wilders or PVV 'anti-Islam' or some variant, without mentioning secularism. Seeing as how Wilders has repeated declared himself 'against Islam' and as 'hating Islam' (not 'Islamism', 'radical Islam', etc., mind you, but Islam), 'anti-Islam' is almost a self-description; I do not think it should be seen as a smear. --darolew (talk) 05:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

You are pushing your own POV and doing original research. “Wilders does not criticize religion in general; he criticizes Islam” is not a valid argument. He has explained quite clearly, why he is criticizing islam, and the reason is simple: other religions in the Dutch society accept the secular principles, islam doesn't (in his opinion). Wilders is most definitely of the liberal, secular tradition (like Fortuyn was, btw), they all simply see islam, and not the moderate Christian denominations as a threat to secularism (and it would be difficult to comprehend why one shouldn't think that way - after all, Dutch Catholics and adherents to different Proestant denominations have shown they can live together tolerantly for decades, without calling for beheading of others, without resorting to murdering critics etc.) Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 08:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Then he is against Islam in order to (according to you) preserve secularism; that does not contradict the 'anti-Islam' description. From what I know, PVV focuses on criticizing Islam more than promoting secularism; this is how the party is reported in the media—and how it is described in the sources for this article. Given the current references, describing PVV as a secularist party is nonsense; but if you can find sources supporting the secularist description, then include it. Otherwise, it remains your interpretation. --darolew (talk) 22:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I did a quick Google test. I see 140,000 results searching for 'anti-Islam' or 'anti-Muslim' in combination with several permutations of PVV's name. I see 12,900 results in a similar search with 'secularism' or 'secularist', rising to 31,000 when 'secular' is added. This would suggest that the party is more often seen as anti-Islam than secularist;—that does not mean 'secularism' must be excluded from the ideology section, but it does suggest it would be improper to describe it only as a secularist party, without mentioning its anti-Islam position. --darolew (talk) 00:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

What you forgot to do was to google 'secularism' and 'anti-islam'. Not surprisingly, 'anti-islam' has 5 times more hits (despite the fact that secularism has been a long term issue for the Western world, unlike political opposition to islam), as 'anti-islam' is often used as a political catch-word, whereas secularism is a term more suitable for academic discourse. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 09:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Good points; the search engine test may not be of any worth. But to get back to the discussion: I think PVV's criticism of Islam is a salient characteristic of the party, worthy of notice in the ideology section. Is this disputed? If not, then it becomes a matter of terminology. The article currently uses 'Anti-Islamism'; but opposition to Islamism (a.k.a. militant Islam, radical Islam, etc.) is commonplace, and hardly distinguishes Wilders' party. I think Wilders himself would agree; he gave the mission of IFA as "stop Islam, defend freedom", not "stop Islamism". All of Wilders public statements that I have seen are of the same character: he is critical of Islam itself, without adjectives or -isms. I think this point would be undisputed by anyone familiar with the subject. Thus, I would argue that 'Anti-Islam'—which is a neutral term (unlike, say, 'Islamophobia' or 'anti-Muslim')—more accurately describes the party's position (or at least Wilders' position) on Islam than 'anti-Islamism'. :--darolew (talk) 18:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

To judge a political party's ideology, you have to look at the exact thing it's saying. For instance: Wilders' view on islam is called conservative and nationalistic. But why are his views on islam like that? That's because Wilders sees islam as undemocratic, homophobic, women-unfriendly and violent. So he supports democracy and equal rights for women and homosexuals (this is also in his party programme). Another thing: He once canceled a premiere of a documentary film about himself, called "Islam Rising" made by the Christian Action Network, because he found out that organisation was homophobic. So his points of view on islam are based on liberal things, so that's why I'm in favour of saying the PVV-ideology is 'national liberal', not national conservative. Also, 'right-wing populism' isn't an ideology, but rather a way of political conduct, so I deleted that from the ideology list. SuperDutchGuy  (bla) 06:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Far-right

Someone removed the bit about the major UK media (including rightwing media) regarding the PVV as far-right, asking how this is relevant. It is relevant in the following way: the article currently describes the PVV as rightwing (rather than as far-right) and this is very controversial because the PVV is widely regarded as far-right (and not just in the UK, incidentally but in other countries). 195.72.173.52 (talk) 14:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The PVV is hardly "far-right". The PVV is a capitalist party which oppose Islamisation on a pragmatic basis, and is thus most correctly "right-wing". In Britain and Europe, people have become aware of the BNP, which correctly falls under "far-right". The only thing these parties have in common is opposition to Islamisation. The PVV for instance does not have any racist elements in its policies. -TheG (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Respected international media, including CNN and BBC, call them far-right. That makes it relevant. 82.176.202.53 (talk) 23:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not very relevant, because you cannot expect these international media to be well informed about the peculiarities of Dutch politics. I think sources of Dutch origin (English or Dutch written) are more relevant. Andries (talk) 14:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The BBC no longer refers to the PVV as 'far-right'. The house style now describes them as 'rightwing' or 'anti-Islam'. Wilders is now also described in this way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.12.252.18 (talk) 10:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, the Economist does use far-right to characterise the party's political orientation, that should be sufficient to proof there is a mainstream consensus on this issue. --78.53.47.215 (talk) 07:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

That a few newspaper sources refer to the party as 'far-right' does not denote any consensus. Die LINKE, the party surely much liked by you, is also often simply characterized as 'far-left', though closer inquiry reveals, that the party has such trends, but the German intelligence authorities do not classify the whole party as such. The very source added (quite a mansucript http://www.iva.nl/uploads/documents/166.pdf) simply shows that the classification of that party is controversial and lists various opinions. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 10:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Show that more than a few newspaper sources refer to the party as 'conservative'. Junge Freiheit, the newspaper surely much liked by you, is also often simply characterized as 'far-right', though closer inquiry reveals, that the newspaper has such trends, but the German intelligence authorities do not classify the whole newspaper as such.--78.53.47.215 (talk) 11:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC) P.S. You might mistake far-right for meaning neo-nazi. Maybe you shouldn't rely on machine translations, what it basically says in the source I provided is:

Finally, it is clear that the party organization of the Freedom Party is not democratic and can be classified as 'authoritarian'. The PVV can be labeled as new radical right: a party that is ideologically 'national democratic', but has no links with former radical right in the form of social genealogy or a racial revolutionary orientation.

The Guardian, the Telegraph, AFP, France24, The Financial Time and CNN refers PVV as far right.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/netherlands/7374304/Dutch-far-right-politician-Geert-Wilders-arrives-in-Britain.html

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hqLlrThhF76LfjhY_VArZR6ZZdrw

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/07/25/beck.norway/

http://www.france24.com/en/20100304-dutch-far-right-party-scores-victory-local-vote

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/269c9836-45ce-11e0-acd8-00144feab49a.html#axzz1TG46ehSH Patauge (talk) 00:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

And there are numerous similar newspaper articles, that do not refer to the party as far right. If we had a lot of scholarly sources defining the PVV as such, then we should introduce it. So far this patently isn't the case.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 09:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It appears to me that a few PVV-supporters, like the editor right above me, are trying to keep the label "far-right" from being applied by all means possible. In the wake of the Norway attacks, plenty of media have referred to the PVV as far-right, as had many before that time. There is no valid reason not to label the PVV as "far right".82.176.209.52 (talk) 13:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree, a lot of respectable sources label them as far right it's ridiculous to not include it in the article Patauge (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Saying PVV is far-right and basing it on foreign media is the most stupid thing you could do. Foreign media have no idea of the political climate in the Netherlands, of how Dutch people see things and where the dutch political centre is. The only thing foreign media see is what Wilders says about Islam. Foreign media can't judge dutch political parties. If PVV is far right, then U.S. Republican party is the most extremist right possible. PVV might be right-wing, or maybe it's not even right wing but just centre-right. For instance: The PVV views on defence, gay rights, death penalty and health care in the US would be Obama times ten. Also, far-right political parties mainly aren't democratic, while PVV wants to have a chosen Prime Minister, chosen Mayors and a direct democracy. So the label 'far-right' is absolutely wrong. Then a sentence as "The PVV-ideology is often labeled far-right by foreign media" would be better. SuperDutchGuy  (bla) 08:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The "far-right" labelling does not only rely on foreign media, but also on scholarly sources. This is acceptable per WP policies. Unfortunately, your own observations, studies and comparisons are not very relevant, unless they are published in reliable sources. Regards --RJFF (talk) 07:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Used SuperDutchGuy is misrepresenting PVV views. First of all, Wilders openly supported McCain for president and vocally opposed Obama in the last elections, also in televised comments. He has often expressed sympathy for the Republican party. The definition of "far right" is completely unrelated to "how the Dutch people see things". The political center does not mean the average of the furthest right-wing party and the furthest left-wing party, it is a term indicating specific political views - the fact that the PVV labels Dutch centrist parties like D66 as "leftist" is a strong indication in itself that the PVV sees itself as a ultra-right wing party. The assertion that far-right parties aren't democratic is nonsensical and irrelevant - many far-right parties like Le Pen's "Front National" are completely democratic, and even people like Adolph Hitler were democratically elected. Also, the PVV might support elected PMs and mayors, but it opposes internal democracy by not allowing membership, thus eliminating the usual procedure of having its list of candidates approved by the membership. The PVV also opposes free speech, as was indicated by the pressure they exerted on local politics to have lectures by Von der Dunk and the Nexus Institute cancelled, amongst other violations of free speech. User SuperDutchGuy's claims on PVV policy regarding health care, gay rights, etc. are based on campaign rhetoric, while the PVV has consistently voted with the Dutch conservatives (CDA, SGP, often VVD) on these issues, breaking their own campaign promises (e.g. retirement age, care for senior citizens). So the above claims are irrelevant and largely untrue. 82.176.209.52 (talk) 11:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Again: far right

The far-right position of the PVV is verified by a scholarly source: David Marquand "The End of the West: The Once and Future Europe". If there still should be special reasons not to include this in the infobox, these issues should be discussed here. Kind regards --RJFF (talk) 16:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The location of the PVV in the Dutch political spectrum in 2010 (according to André Krouwel)

.

It appears that inclusion of the label "far right" is being prevented solely by a small group of politically motivated editors. Is it possible to present the evidence to a neutral arbiter? 82.176.209.52 (talk) 13:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

As both "right-wing" and "far right" are verified by scholarly sources, I would propose to include both labels. I hope nobody will object to this compromise. --RJFF (talk) 14:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

You can't found political pages on scholarly sources, because these often aren't objective. Based on the current dutch political climate, PVV is absolutely not far-right. The Dutch page on PVV also refers PVV as 'right-wing'. This Dutch article http://www.elsevier.nl/web/Nieuws/Politiek/256826/PVV-niet-extreemrechts-maar-nieuw-rechts-radicaal.htm is about PVV being not far-right, but radical neo-right-wing. SuperDutchGuy  (bla) 07:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC), edited on 07:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we have to found every WP article on scholarly sources. This is a basic principle of the Wikipedia. Far right and radical right are usually used synonymously (see: Far-right politics). If there should be a special reason to use radical right-wing instead of far-right in this context, please discuss this here. Regards --RJFF (talk) 07:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Who determines if "David Marquand "The End of the West: The Once and Future Europe" is an objective source or not? In the Dutch objective media, PVV is never referred as 'far-right'. Objective foreign media like BBC have also stopped referring to PVV as far-right. Dutch Political Logist André Krouwel has even stated PVV not right-wing at all. I think that's a little more convincing than a few foreign sources.

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources determines which sources are reliable. This is the English-language Wikipedia. Therefore not only Dutch sources are to be considered, but also international. Whether the BBC refers to this party as far-right or not, is not more relevant than the findings of academic studies. Usually, political scientists know better than journalists. If André Krouwel has published his observations in a reliable source, and you think this is relevant, we can discuss to include this statement in the article. Kind regards --RJFF (talk) 08:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

And, which might be the most important argument of all, the AIVD (the General Intelligence and Security Service, sort of Dutch CIA/FBI) do not consider PVV to be a far-right political party/movement. Source: https://www.aivd.nl/onderwerpen-0/extremisme/rechts-extremisme/ (NVU, NSA/ANS, RVF, Blood & Honour, Combat 18 and NJN are considered far-right by the AIVD) SuperDutchGuy  (bla) 09:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I guess that the Dutch domestic intelligence publishes a list of extremist groups that really endanger the democratic system. And they do not include parties or groups when they are not 100 % sure. It does not disprove the classification (done by scholars who are freer than government authorities) as "right wing (+references) to far-right (+references)". Parties-and-elections.de is a website published by a single German lawyer. According to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, self-published websites are not reliable sources. We should not use this source if there is a lot of real scholarly sources out there, that have really examined this party. Therefore I will reinstate the version of this article before your edits, which was verified by reliable sources instead of original research, and which obviously was accepted by many Wikipedians. Please try to stand it, too. Kind regards. --RJFF (talk) 09:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

But they were totally sure. They went undercover at Party for Freedom and published a report on how they went undercover at PVV and that it was not far right. SuperDutchGuy  (bla) 10:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

That supports the finding that some sources support the classification as "right-wing" and some support "far-right". Therefore the editors of this article compromised on including both tags. If you have the time and the motivation, you can write some balanced and verifiable sentences about the political position and ideology for the main text. The infobox will always be only a superficial and incomplete summary. Who wants to go deeper into the different issues, has to read (and edit) the main text. I can assure you that the current version of the infobox already is a fragile compromise between dissenting editors. Please try to accept it instead of re-opening the dispute. Regards --RJFF (talk) 09:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I think we can conclude here that there really is no consensus to classify the party as far-right. Sources have been presented for both 'right-wing' and 'far-right' labels, yet it seems the sources (mostly in dutch) that really treat the topic Dutch politics/political spectrum in some detail, do not classify the party as far-right. The notion 'far-right' tends to prop up more frequently in newspapers and other non-scholarly sources outside the Netherlands. Right now, the best thing to do would be to simply remove the 'political position' field altogether. In my opinion, reflecting the controversy in the main article space is fair enough (Party_for_Freedom#Classifications) Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 09:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

That would be unnecessary. I cite from this AIVD-report: http://www.jaarverslag.aivd.nl/downloads/Jaarverslag_2008_AIVD.pdf "Party for Freedom is far-right nor right-wing populistic". Dutch intelligence agency went undercover at PVV and concluded that PVV isn't far-right or right-wing populistic. I think this is the most objective and reliable source so far. SuperDutchGuy  (bla) 10:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Neither are sources by government authorities more objective and reliable than scholarly publications, nor are Dutch sources generally better than international ones. I would qualify the following sources as scholarly (not newspaper) Johannes Lindvall: Mass Unemployment and the State, David Art: Inside the Radical Right, Chopin/Foucher: L'état de l'Union: Rapport Schuman 2011 sur l'Europe. Miacek, you are right: there is no consensus to classify the party as far-right. Therefore it is a compromise to include "right-wing (+refs) to far-right (+refs)" in the infobox. I do not want to let far-right stand alone for the position, just to present both labels, which are both well-sourced by several reliable sources. Kind regards --RJFF (talk) 10:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

What you're saying right now is nonsense to me. In my view it is also clear that PVV is not far-right. As Miacek already said, the Classifications section already covered the far-right rumours. I think RJFF right now tries to make PVV look negatively by describing it as far-right. SuperDutchGuy  (bla) 11:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Please try to keep this discussion on an objective, and not a personal level. There is a number of reliable sources indicating "right-wing and not far-right" and a number of reliable sources explicitly indicating "far-right". Either you can qualify all these sources as unreliable or irrelevant, or you have to accept them. Wikipedia:I don't like it is not an argument. "It's just not true" is not an argument either. "There are some other sources that contradict" is not an argument either. To the contrary: it is an argument to include both "right-wing" and "far-right". Regards --RJFF (talk) 11:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm just saying that I have a lot of knowledge of Dutch politics and I know that PVV is not far right. Now, I know that's not a valid reason, so at least look at all those sources that keep saying PVV is not far-right or even not right-wing populistic. The Classifications section tells about far-right and populistic rumours, and that should be enough. Now, for the Political Position section it would be the best to just say 'Right-wing'. SuperDutchGuy  (bla)

I have the impression that this discussion is going round in circles. I do see the sources that say PVV is not far-right. And I accept them. But I also do see the sources that keep saying it is far-right. And they are not rumours! They are scholarly works by political scientists (not from the Netherlands, though, but this is not a requirement for reliable sources). Please accept this point of view, too. Therefore, it would be the best to include both, as it has already been. We have already had an edit war about this question, with one editor always removing "right-wing" and putting "far-right" and another always reverting. And both were "right", because both tags are verifiable and supported by sources. So please, let us settle this. Hopefully yours --RJFF (talk) 12:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

By the way, this source is from Dutch political scientists, right? So you cannot say, all sources indicating "far-right" are from outside the Netherlands. --RJFF (talk) 12:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

A lot of reliable and scholarly sources (not rumors) refer the PVV as a far-right these sources are relevant and should be included in the infobox. Patauge (talk) 12:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm right now more exploring those sources. What strikes me is how subjective those sources sometimes are. But what's important is: those books only refer to PVV as far-right, without using arguments or analysing it being far-right. They only refer to it. While the sources I gave were actually reports on how PVV was not far-right, and were supported by arguments. --SuperDutchGuy  (bla) 13:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

There is the 2010 study "Polarisatie en radicalisering in Nederland" which has thoroughly analyzed the political positioning and ideology of the party, and given detailed arguments for its classification. It uses "radical right", not "far right", and explicitly not "extreme right". Often these terms are used synonymously. But maybe it makes a difference in Dutch context. Would "radical right", as used in the above study, be more acceptable? Regards --RJFF (talk) 13:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't found my opinion on that study. It included nonsense and some lies about the PVV points of view and the PVV party programme. Wilders himself called it rubbish. But in the Netherlands, there isn't really a radical right. Also, extreme-right and far-right mainly mean the same in the Netherlands. But again, I wouldn't found opinion on that study... --SuperDutchGuy  (bla) 14:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you factually show where the findings of the study are wrong? Just claiming "nonsense" and "lies" is not very helpful. That "Wilders himself" does not like the outcome of the study, does not say anything about its veracity or reliability. This article does not necessarily have to please the party's executive or supporters. I would really like to know if you can show and prove the unreliability or irrelevance of these sources. If you cannot, please accept the sources, and the content which is supported by them. Please try to put aside your own political views and sympathies and try to be neutral. Regards --RJFF (talk) 14:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

For instance: the report said that PVV would do anything to defend national interest. Which is total nonsense. --SuperDutchGuy  (bla) 15:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You might want to think about whether you are in the position to simply reject the findings of an academic study done by respectable scholars as "nonsense" without providing any objective arguments. I do not think that you are conducting an adequate examination of reputable sources. --RJFF (talk) 16:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with DutchGuy in that sources that really treat the political landscape in some depth and substantiate their positioning/classification of the parties in question are to be preferred over sources that simply “refer” to the PVV in one way or another. Just seeing PVV labelled somewhere somehow doesn't mean we should take up that label. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 13:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to throw in an uninformed opinion - This whole debate seems a little a little silly. I'm somewhat acquainted with European politics, and if the PVV isn't what would be considered the "far right" of European politics, I don't know what would be. Perhaps SuperDutchGuy  could tell us which political party in Europe he think actually represents the "far right". NickCT (talk) 20:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The European Political Parties I think represent the far-right are parties like British National Party and the Hungarian Jobbik. Those political parties have fascist and undemocratic points of view. Political parties like UKIP, Die Freiheit, Danish People's Party and Party for Freedom truly are democratic and respectable right-wing parties. --SuperDutchGuy  (bla) 20:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there anyone who objects (with factual argumentation) if I put "radical right" with reference to the 2010 study "Polarisatie en radicalisering in Nederland"? It seems to be the most thorough academic analysis of the ideology of the party, and therefore more relevant than a study by the Dutch intelligence service (independent scholars should be preferable over government authorities which are not necessarily as free and neutral as the scholars), or some random news articles. And this source actually treats the issue "in depth" and does not just "refer" to it. I am open to your comments. Kind regards --RJFF (talk) 16:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Party for Freedom is considered very widely in the political landscape. By some people it's even considered left-wing (http://www.elsevier.nl/web/Opinie/Afshin-Ellian/303141/Waarom-de-PVV-linkser-is-dan-GroenLinks.htm), while some people consider PVV to be radical right, as the study did. It might be better to not include it in the infobox at all, like Miacek said before, or to put something like unclear or varies in the infobox. --SuperDutchGuy  (bla) 17:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Please, you should know how to distinguish an opinion article from reliable sources, e.g. academic studies in scholars' publications. Kind regards --RJFF (talk) 14:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I would like to point out here that Afshin Ellian, cited above as calling the PVV "left-wing", is an extremely controversial Dutch columnist with no particular expertise in the field of political analysis. His views on society are marginal to the extreme. Elsevier, the source mentioned, is a right-wing / conservative opinion-magazine, which considers itself closely allied to the VVD and PVV.82.176.209.52 (talk) 12:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Right-wing populism, national conservatism, and national liberalism

Right-wing populism and national conservatism, both referencing to respective reliable sources have been removed from the infobox. Are there any factual objections against re-including these classifications?

National liberalism currently refers to a self-published website classifiying the Party for Freedom as right-wing populist (major) and conservative liberal (minor). For these reasons, I will remove the reference, and request a citation. Kind regards. --RJFF (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Right-wing populism, in my view, still isn't an ideology, but a way of political conduct. And 'cultural conservatism' might be a better description in stead of 'national conservatism'. --SuperDutchGuy  (bla) 02:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I don't understand, where in this source it is said that Party for Freedom is national conservative? --SuperDutchGuy  (bla) 02:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

You deny that the PVV embraces outright nationalism? How are we to describe calls for mandatory national flags in schools and mandatory singing of the national anthem other than nationalist?82.176.209.52 (talk) 12:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

There are no facts, everything is opinion now

How on earth can you, Estlandia, claim that the sources you removed here are opinion pieces? What a stupid, desperate removal rationale. Please restore the sources until you come up with an actual reason to remove them. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

We also have a reliable source which says that the party is "centre-right".[9] Do you think that we because of this should simply add this to the infobox too? —Filippusson (t.) 20:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Are there reliable sources which disagree that the party is anti-Muslim? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't intend to annoy you with a counter-question; but do you have reliable sources which specifically disagree that the party is centre-right? To answer my own question; of course not, because it is a poorly assessed label that is not taken seriously enough in the mainstream for there to be such a "counter-claim". The same applies to anti-Muslim. —Filippusson (t.) 21:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Far-right and centre-right are inherently mutually exclusive. Are you claiming that sources say the party is pro-Muslim or indifferent to Muslims? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Infobox: Anti-Islam and Anti-Muslim

Do you insist to keep both categories in the ideology field of the infobox, or could we agree to choose one of them, as they are (as far as I can see) mostly congruent. We could then mention the other term in the article body. Your thoughts? --RJFF (talk) 10:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The severity in which the PfF is against both makes including both almost a neccesity... they are known to have called Muslims "cattle" and Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan "an Islamic monkey". I cannot think of any party that is more anti-Islam, or more anti-moslim. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 10:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that they are the same thing, but as long as users like Filippuson and Estlandia claim that the party is "only against the religion and not against the people," we cannot remove one. Well, I suppose we could leave "anti-Muslim," since even if you create a quibble about their not being the same, it encompasses "anti-Islam." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Just use both untill a clear concencus is reached. It is common knowledge that the party falls under both, there isn't much (if any) debate over whether or not the party is anti-Muslim, as it clearly is. They call muslims cattle and compare them with apes for God's sake! Mythic Writerlord (talk) 14:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

suggest to add more information about the islamophobic nature of this party. the current version clearly downplays this side. if not, a "neutrality is disputed"-tag is completely appropriate.-- mustihussain  15:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I say add the tag asap. It will hopefully draw more (neutral) editors to improve the page. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 16:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

done. you should start improving the article by yourself.-- mustihussain  17:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Islam is the position mostly accepted by the mainstream and scholars. Anti-Muslim in turn is a controversial assessment cited in a few news articles, and is not appropriate for the infobox. It is nevertheless appropriate to cite it in the article prose, like "some media has called the party anti-Muslim". We can't just put everything someone has found in a news article in the infobox. In that case, we might just as well put centre-right in the infobox too, as I discussed above. —Filippusson (t.) 18:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

You've said this already, but it's still wrong. Please find new arguments or refute the arguments provided, rather than repeating the same false statements about the sources, which, contrary to your claim, are scholarly as well as news and represent the prevailing view of the party. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Could we come back to my initial question? Do we have to keep both labels in the infobox? Or could we put one of them to the article's body? The infobox should be a place for readers to find the most important imformation on a quick overview, and not a place for some Wikipedia editors to make a point. It still seems redundant to me to keep both terms. I have the impression that the sources - like most of us - use both terms mostly synonymous. Neither do we have a source that explicitly says "PVV is anti-Islamic, but not anti-Muslim!", nor do we have one that says "PVV is not only anti-Islamic, but also anti-Muslim!" They just seem to attribute both terms variantly (or even randomly?) Regards --RJFF (talk) 19:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

keep both.-- mustihussain  19:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

As I said, I'm fine either with removing "anti-Islam" or keeping both, but not with removing "anti-Muslim." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, "anti-Muslim" is nevertheless by no measure a political ideology, which is where you are intent on putting the label in the infobox. Anti-Islam is somewhat questionable in that sense too, but at least it involves opposition to a religion or ideology, and not towards a group of people. —Filippusson (t.) 19:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

This is the new argument you came up with when you couldn't find sources to justify removing it? Cute. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The PVV is clearly also against (multiple) group(s) of people: they want all non-Western immigrants out and want to ban muslim clothes aswell as the building of mosques. Members of the party have called Muslims (or: Islamic People) apes and even "cattle" (Wilders once said a rivil party "flooded the nation with Islamic cattle to vote for them"). All pretty extreme, and all of this can be sourced and referenced. These statements, many of them very radical and racist, are very well documented and well-known. By no way is this bashing them or original research. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 20:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

writerlord, please add your findings to the main aricle using reliable sources.-- mustihussain  20:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Your claim that the PVV "want all non-Western immigrants out" is nonsensical, and you should otherwise try to stick to the subject instead of launching out a bunch of red herrings (you clearly misinterpret, intentional or accidental, the meaning of the "cattle" thing when you try to make it seem like the PVV by nature regards Muslims as cattle). —Filippusson (t.) 20:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

"Voting cattle" has nothing to do with racism. You can use it with anybody. It just means that you blindly vote for a certain party or candidate. It is idiomatic, it does not mean that you actually refer to a group as animals. But this meta discussion leads us away from the initial question. Mustihussain, you say "keep both." Could you please explain your opinion? --RJFF (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

it's obvious we have to keep both after reading your comment here [10]. both are being used in secondary sources. it's not up to us the interpret what this means, and we comply with wp:npov.-- mustihussain  20:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I perfectly agree that we may mention the media's use of "anti-Muslim" in the article prose, but it doesn't make much sense to apply it as an ideology in the infobox. —Filippusson (t.) 22:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Convinces me, too.--RJFF (talk) 00:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Since you've said you believe they are the same, why do you wish to remove "anti-Muslim" rather than "anti-Islam"? (Note, by the way, that Filippuson is just coming off an edit-warring block for repeatedly removing sources describing a different group as anti-Muslim. Just so you're aware that this is about his political views, not about his ideas on the aesthetics of infoboxes.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Since I've said I believe they are the same, I don't care which one will be removed. I don't have a preference. I already know Filipusson a bit, thank you for trying to warn me ;) Do we agree that the link would go to Islamophobia anyway? Or should it be Criticism of Islam? --RJFF (talk) 01:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, I think I must have misunderstood your "convinces me" comment then. I would say Islamophobia, certainly. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

islamophobia for sure.-- mustihussain  07:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 09:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I say we simply put Islamophobia in the infobox completly in the open. It is at least not acceptable to hide it behind another word. I would also make a case for adding Blasphemy. —Filippusson (t.) 10:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Another option would be to describe the party in the lead as "controversial" and add a section "controversy" in which we go deeper into this (well-sourced, of course). Mythic Writerlord (talk) 11:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Is the NPOV discussion resolved? The tag was added 13th of November 2011, and the discussion ended the next day. I dont understand what the issue is about? Anyway, if there is no reply in the immediate future, I invite editors to remove the NPOV tag or otherwise solve the dispute. -- Honorsteem (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan "an Islamic monkey"

It is literally true that the PVV called Erdogan an Islamic monkey, but this was part of an innocent Dutch expression with no offensive meaning. Dutch expression is "Nu komt de aap uit de mouw".Andries (talk) 07:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Many Turks beg to differ, and it caused a major row. Many Dutch politicians including Prime Minister Rutte, found it to be very offensive. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 09:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Here come the sources: Today's Zaman, NIS News. The incidence seems to have drawn some media attraction both in Turkey and the Netherlands. But this belongs in Geert Wilders' article, not here. Regards --RJFF (talk) 19:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

So, @Andries, "innocent expression", but PM Rutte and PM Erdogan beg to differ. Now who is a better source, a wikipedia editor or the Prime Ministers of independent countries? Mythic Writerlord (talk) 19:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

As a Dutchman I can verify this expression was used in an offensive context. That's exactly why the Dutch parliament and government distanced itself from this statement. NeoRetro (talk) 09:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Again: Anti-Muslim

Estlandia, do you in all seriousness claim that a Princeton professor with a Ph.D. from Yale tags a party as anti-Muslim in her academic publication out of sloppiness??? --RJFF (talk) 14:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

No, but it was just a label attached there with no substantation. Why should the professor's word count more than the Dutch political scientists' analysis, that do not support such a label? There clearly is no consensus to include the inherently controversial 'anti-Muslim' label as an ideology. You were once very picky [11] when it came to including ideologies in the political party infoboxes, why are you making such a U-turn here? Estlandia (dialogue) 15:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I could agree that it might be appropriate to put it as part of the article prose, alongside other such controversial assessments. It doesn't belong in the infobox in any case; I think all serious editors should be able to reckognize this, whether they think there's some substance in the claim or not. —Filippusson (t.) 15:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, you (Estlandia, not Filippusson) claim that an established scholar writes something in a first-class academic publication "with no substantiation." How presumptuous is this? I am absolutely not keen on keeping this label in the ideology field of the box. But I am keen on leading an honest discussion instead of mere removal of sourced content with flimsy and simply untrue explanations. Writing some lines in prose would be helpful. Regards --RJFF (talk) 15:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

a compromise solution might be to add a paragraph or two about the anti-muslim nature of this party in the main article body. the continued removal of any mention of this matter severely violates wp:npov. -- mustihussain  15:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I objetct to the anti-muslim label because it already states anti-islam. So it would be repetitive. Pass a Method talk 15:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Filippusson's compromise proposal. I have specified who is meant with "some". --RJFF (talk) 15:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree. My compromise proposal is very, very simple: if you believe the terms are redundant, put your money where your mouth is and remove "anti-Islam" while leaving "anti-Muslim." Otherwise, this smacks of yet another stupid tactic to remove or hide sourced content, which I suspect is exactly what it is. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I do not see that content that is in the article's body instead of the infobox is "hidden". --RJFF (talk) 16:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

So then no one should have any problem with leaving "anti-Muslim" in the infobox and putting "anti-Islam" in the body. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Did you check, what a neutral party had to say on the anti-Muslim-in-the-infobox label? If not, please do it. Thanks in advance! Estlandia (dialogue) 16:18, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

And? I disagree with him/her. We're long past the point where 3O resolves a discussion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

What could resolve the discussion in your opinion, if you are not ready to move an inch towards a compromise? Do you insist on 100% enforcement of your position? Wikipedia is based on co-operation. You cannot expect that you always have your way. Please think about it and try to warm to compromise. Kind regards --RJFF (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Not to be flippant, but of anyone here I've been making the most effort towards working with others. I believe "anti-Islam" is a politically correct way of saying "anti-Muslim" and that the two are thus redundant, but when these users claimed they were different, I, not they, made the effort of finding sources that described the party as anti-Muslim (which they then removed). When a NPOVN discussion suggested finding scholarly sources (in spite of the fact that most of the rest of the article is based on news sources or worse), I, not they, found sources from university presses and journals (which they then removed, claiming that they were "sloppy journalism" - in case you thought these were people interested in editing honestly). When they then changed their tactic and declared that, rather than being different, they were actually the same and thus that one should be removed to avoid redundancy, I wholeheartedly agreed with them and suggested removing "anti-Islam," since they are the same. They refused. It has been obvious throughout this entire process that Filippusson, Estlandia and PassaMethod are incredibly determined to claim that no one is anti-Muslim - that no matter what nasty things a party says about Muslims and no matter how many sources call them anti-Muslim, in their heart of hearts they just want to rescue people from the evils of Islam - and their rapidly changing nonsensical excuses for removing sourced material, edit-warring to the point of being blocked, and doublespeak are evidence of this fact. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I also agree with the current compromise version, also referring to - kind of supportive - comments by a neutral party [12], [13]. If Roscalese can't live with it, it's her problem.Estlandia (dialogue) 16:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the current compromise. It seems we have a consensus. Pass a Method talk 16:28, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

your argument is solely based on repetition ("i objetct to the anti-muslim label because it already states anti-islam. so it would be repetitive"). if so, why not replace anti-islam with anti-muslim?-- mustihussain  16:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Anti-islam, is less controversial. Anti-muslim is a questionable and disputed term since the leader of this party has repeatedly denied the label. Pass a Method talk 17:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Wilders has denied that label with respect to himself. When adding sources to support the description as anti-Muslim, I specifically excluded sources that described Wilders as anti-Muslim and only added sources that described the party as anti-Muslim. If you're going to claim that material relating to Wilders specifically is acceptable when it allows you to remove a label you dislike, you are obliged to accept that material relating to Wilders specifically is acceptable when it contains the anti-Muslim description - and unfortunately for you, that opens up a lot more sources we can use. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Per neutral point of view, we should include the least controversial. Anti-islam is not controversial. Anti-muslim IS controversial. Therefore, we give more prominence to the former over the latter. Pass a Method talk 14:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The idea that it is non-neutral to include sourced information that the article subject does not wish to be made public has already been rejected at NPOVN. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Anti-muslim may be controversial to those who share the views of the PVV, but in the Netherlands and abroad the "anti-muslim" and "islamophobia" classification is pretty much widely accepted. There have been many statements by both the party leader Wilders and other members that resulted in major controversy - there has also been a trial in which the party's leader was tried for hate speech; he wasn't convicted, but still. There is more then enough evidence to support such claims. Tell me, to whom exactly is the "anti-muslim" bit controversial? Mythic Writerlord (talk) 14:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

We have "anti-Islam" in the infobox, we have "anti-Muslim" in the body, where it is neither removed nor "hidden". I do not see a base for discussion any longer. The infobox is not more important than the whole article. Still, I think that "anti-Islam" should link to Islamophobia, instead of Criticism of Islam, because anti-Islamic is a synonym of Islamophobic, and not of critical of Islam. --RJFF (talk) 15:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• sources describing pvv as anti-islam : [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]

• sources describing pvv as islamophobic; [20], [21],

I prefer anti-islam because pvv is not completely anti-muslim. For example, pvv accepts integrated muslims, therefore the label anti-muslim is not entirely accurate. Also to add "anti-muslim" would mean WP:UNDUE because "anti-islam" is in the infobox already. Are we also going to add islamopbobic? Adding all these phrases would be repetitive. Pass a Method talk 18:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The PVV does NOT accept any muslims. They would just say a good Muslim isn't a muslim at all because the Islam is a dangerous politcal ideology. That's exactly why so many people have left the PVV; because they don't make any diffrence between extremist terrorists and moderate integrated muslins in the Netherlands. NeoRetro (talk) 08:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Fascism?

Shouldn't we mention the PVV is a fascist party? Or is that term not considered to be neutral? According to the university of Tilburg (https://stuwww.uvt.nl/~s559710/BA-Thesis%20Henk%20Bovekerk.pdf), that term is factual. -- Ifer (talk) 10:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

″According to the university of Tilburg″ - lol. I didn't know students' BA theses reflect the viewpoints of a particular university.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 10:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Party programme

What is the rationale for including "third-party" template? It's a party programme, literally what the party itself has to say. StasMalyga (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to echo literally what the party itself has to say. Wikipedia should present what reliable third-party sources have to say about the party. --RJFF (talk) 16:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Did you even try to understand my comment? How third-party sources contribute to the party program, as long as the party program is available from the party site itself? Note that I'm talking only about this small part of the article. StasMalyga (talk) 12:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Third-party sources may critically analysis the party's program, while simply reiterating the party program constitutes advertisement for the party, because party programs are always advertising the respective party. Parties always present themselves in a positive light and not neutrally. Therefore, either third-party sources that analyse and discuss the party program have to be found, or the section has to be removed. Readers who want to know how the party presents itself should consult the party's own website and not Wikipedia. --RJFF (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think listing some of the things the party supports necessarily constitutes advertisement, esp. in case of such controversial points like PVV's here.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 16:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

At least it is an uncritical (and therefore un-encyclopedic) rendering of the party's own release. It is unnecessary to echo the party program without any third-party analysis or commentary, because these points can be found just there, in the party program! Who wants to know the party program, does not have to consult Wikipedia (or any encyclopedia). --RJFF (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

It is commonplace to list at least some of the parties' main programme points here on-wiki. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 14:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

It is commonplace to discuss the parties' main program points referencing third-party sources, not to literally echo the party program referencing only the party program itself. Compare, for example, (unfortunately retired) User:Bellatores' series of well-researched good articles on European right-wing populist parties. --RJFF (talk) 15:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

No, it is common to just present some points from the program, cf True Finns#Immigration. (Yeah, evil 'populists' again, but what can I do...). Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 19:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. True Finns is not an example of a good article. If in other articles Wikipedia policies are not properly applied, it is not a justification for not applying them in this article. But thank you for pointing me to it. I have tagged it for excessive use of primary (first-party) sources, too. --RJFF (talk) 22:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The True Finns article does contain thid party views of the party in other sections of the article, and so does this article (for example under 'Classifications'). The section titled 'Policies' in the True Finns article is about the party's official stances. No third party can determine what the party's offial policies are: that can be done only by the party itself. Same with this party: no one outside the PVV can decide what is is included in the party's official programme. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 03:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Have you read the above discussion? I do not want to repeat myself. The party's "official stands" as can be found in the party's programme are not of interest to an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias utilise secondary sources, not primary ones. The "official" stands can be found on the respective parties' websites, they do not belong in an encyclopedia article. --RJFF (talk) 17:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you cite a policy to that effect?Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 18:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

RJFF is right. Presenting the party's program presents problems of original research and weight. We should use secondary sources. TFD (talk) 17:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

How does CITING some parts of the program present a problem with original research?!Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 18:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The selection of which parts of the programme you cite (which parts you consider important or unimport) is already an act of analysing and evaluating primary sources which should not be done by Wikipedia editors, but by the authors of citable secondary sources. Moreover, the fact that a piece of information is not taken up by and represented in reliable sources is usually an indication to consider it not notable for a Wikipedia article. Why don't you do some research to find scholarly papers or books that deal with PVV's programme? Then we could replace this section with well-sourced material, like it is done in Bellatores' distinguished articles (to name, again, a good example). --RJFF (talk) 18:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

selection of which parts of the programme you cite - well according to this logic, you are also doing OR when you're citing tertiary sources, by selecting, which parts of those you cite (copy-paste being copyvio).Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 18:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

PVV is neither classical liberal nor far-right

The only labels that would fit them is 'cultural conservatism', 'social democratic (they are proponents of the welfare state)' and 'anti-immigration'. They are pretty much conservative centrists (comparable to CDA, but with an anti-immigration and strong law and order dimension ). However, they are definitely not liberal in the European sense.

This was their election program for 2012: http://www.pvv.nl/images/stories/verkiezingen2012/VerkiezingsProgramma-PVV-2012-final-web.pdf 178.117.252.112 (talk) 00:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Since the sources do not say it is "conservative liberal", I will remove it. Also, best to avoid terminology that can have several meanings, unless the meaning is clear in context. But the classification of rw populism is well supported in the literature. If they do not fit, then neither does anyone else. TFD (talk) 18:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

We shouldn't change things here based on an anonymous user's perception. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 19:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Of course not, changes always depend sources. However, we can check the sources when content of the article is questioned. TFD (talk) 20:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Citation needed

For the part: "The Party for Freedom combines economic liberalism with a conservative programme on immigration and culture. The party seeks tax cuts (€16 billion in the 2006 election programme), de-centralisation, abolition of the minimum wage, and limiting child benefits and government subsidies. Regarding immigration and culture, the party believes that the Judeo-Christian and humanist traditions should be taken as the dominant culture in the Netherlands, and that immigrants should adapt accordingly. The party wants a halt to immigration from non-Western countries. It is sceptical towards the EU, is against future EU enlargement to countries like Turkey and opposes a dominant presence of Islam in the Netherlands.[50] The party is also opposed to dual citizenship (see below).

The Parliamentary Documentation Center (Parlementair Documentatie Centrum) of the University of Leiden characterizes the PVV as "populist, with both conservative, liberal, right-wing and left-wing positions".[51] " there are citation(s) needed. You can see this as incorrect if it's not delivered. --Mahuset (talk) 17:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Again: far-right

The pvv is not far-right. It is right-wing and maybe a little bit radical-right. http://static3.trouw.nl/static/photo/2012/4/6/9/20120814230641/media_xl_1323354.jpg81.58.144.30 (talk) 14:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Hardly 'vandalism'!

Why should the name of a foundation (not a publication, work of art, or similar) be italicized? Further, how is linking the term fascism, otherwise undefined in the article, and a pretty serious charge in the modern era when aimed at a political organization, vandalistic? 2600:1004:B152:7609:A592:C778:907C:634 (talk) 01:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Non-western EU passports

I put a citation needed-tag at the claim that the party seeks to ban entry for Polish, Bulgarians and Romanians citizens. There is no such demand in the party programme at http://www.pvv.nl/images/stories/Webversie_VerkiezingsProgrammaPVV.pdf. The program mentions these countries only twice referring to work permits. --Kreuzkümmel (talk) 15:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Party for Freedom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090402002907/http://www.radionetherlands.nl:80/news/zijlijn/6235703/Geert-Wilders-Freedom-Party-rises-to-32-seats to http://www.radionetherlands.nl/news/zijlijn/6235703/Geert-Wilders-Freedom-Party-rises-to-32-seats

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Party for Freedom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080526150442/http://www.refdag.nl:80/artikel/1271047 to http://www.refdag.nl/artikel/1271047
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081018231807/http://www.radionetherlands.nl:80/currentaffairs/071204-freedom-party-mc to http://www.radionetherlands.nl/currentaffairs/071204-freedom-party-mc
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090304192912/http://www.radionetherlands.nl:80/news/zijlijn/6196336/Wilders-Freedom-Party-leads-polls to http://www.radionetherlands.nl/news/zijlijn/6196336/Wilders-Freedom-Party-leads-polls

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:15, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Poor use of English

Unfortunately this article has evidently been written by a Dutch-speaker without any editing by a native speaker. Please don't just assume your English is faultless - have it checked before you post it!213.127.210.95 (talk) 12:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Your last piece of advice seems to contradict the guideline, which says ...don't let your lack of command of the language stop you from contributing; other people will be able to help with grammar, spelling, and so on.... Feel free to copy-edit the article, or if you can't, post instances of particularly poor English here. Gap9551 (talk) 15:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

far-right

so we can conclude that far-right does not mean nazi then because geert wilders supports gay marriage. please realign nazis to the far left like they properly belong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.245.49.161 (talk) 05:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Antisemitic?

The statement that "The study claims that the PVV holds xenophobic ideas, but not antisemitic ideas" is wrong for two reasons. Firstly a study does not "claim" anything, it finds or concludes something. Secondly the association of xenophobic and anti-Semitic. These are two entirely different concepts, and cannot be associated in this way - the implication of the wording being that a xenophobe is automatically anti-Semitic.203.80.61.102 (talk) 04:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Anti-Muslim agenda in the lead

Worldwide PVV is known for its anti-Muslim agenda. Most international news articles mention that whenever talking about PVV. So its specific proposals regarding Muslims do belong in the lead. I'm going to restore the following:

The PVV has also proposed banning the Quran and shutting down all mosques in the Netherlands.

It's brief and specific.VR _talk 19:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

What should "Anti-Islam" in the "Ideology" section link to?

Hello, I have temporarily removed the link to the 'Anti-Islam' disambiguation page because I feel like linking to a disambiguated article page is pointless and vague. However, moving forward, should we leave the phrase without a link like it is now? Or should we link it to one of the individual article pages that were on the disambiguation page? If so, it would appear that the Party for Freedom's platform and policies goes beyond theological "criticism of Islam" and coincides closest to 'Islamophobia,' which is defined as "prejudice against, hatred, or bigotry towards the religion of Islam and Muslims" but that particular phrase is rather controversial in and of itself and I don't want to make that change without some level of consensus from other Wikipedians first. Kamalthebest (talk) 06:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I believe it would be best to leave it unlinked then. There is no direct need to list a link on such a term as widely understood as "Anti-Islam" if no such article would assist a reader. 03:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it should link to Islamophobia. There's probably a few references for that too. PVV has called for banning the Quran and shutting down all mosques - how on earth is that not "prejudice"??VR _talk 19:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@Vice regent: I agree that it should link to Islamophobia. I just don't want to be the only one who makes that judgment. Kamalthebest (talk) 05:56, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Election results

I have now twice removed a change in number of seats between two elections from the election results section. Important changes in seats could be mentioned elsewhere, such as in the history section, but when they are not official election results, they should not be added to that section. – Editør (talk) 20:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Again, I have twice reverted edits by User:BasBr1. As a compromise, maybe a footnote could be added to the official election results of 2009, in which the change in the number of seats after the elections is explained. – Editør (talk) 11:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

The 2009 European Election were held with the understanding, that the Treaty of Lisbon was about to be ratified by all EU member states and the Netherlands would gain one seat in parliament. The extra seat was awarded to the PVV by the electoral college on basis on the 2009 results. They updated the results. I tried to present that as elegant possible. Let's see what other people think. A footnote would be appreciated for now. --BasBr1 (talk) 13:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Also i editted the page everything with the comments from talk in mind. I presented it keeping his comment in mind. Never reverting but considering the comment. --BasBr1 (talk) 02:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Positions

I think subsections on "Islam" and "European Union" should be created and added to the Positions section. – Editør (talk) 13:14, 17 December 2017 (UTC)