Talk:Party for Freedom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Politics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, an attempt to improve, organise and standardise Wikipedia's articles in the area of politics. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article..
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.


Shouldn't this page be moved to Wilders Group?

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.

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] A sad day in Dutch politics

A member of parliament is not allowed to speak freely, cut short by PvdA parliamentary chairman. Unfortunately I am not permitted to edit political articles right now, so if you know Dutch: [5] V8rik 00:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] Right Wing Populism?

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)