Talk:Vereniging Basisinkomen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 17 April 2008. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

A fact from Vereniging Basisinkomen appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 14 January 2008.

Contents 1 Notability 2 Werkplaats and Vereniging 3 Jubileum conference 4 Sociale databank 5 Vivant 6 Nationwide school exam 7 DISK conference 8 Noordwijk international Vereniging Basisinkomen conference 9 Amsterdam 1998 BIEN Conference 10 Université catholique de Louvain 11 Natuurwetpartij 11.1 further vivant discussion 12 Bold changes 13 References 13.1 Further reading 14 COI 14.1 arb 15 Origins 16 Activities 17 Proposals 18 Suggestion: WikiProject Netherlands

[edit] Notability

I have added the {{notability}} tag to the article, because I'm not sure this organisation is notable enough for Wikipedia. This article comes across as a coatrack for a minimum income. There is no coverage of the organisation in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Furthermore, the claims to notability of the organisation are flimsy at best. There are basically two claims of notability. Firstly, the section #Research says that several members have done some significant research into this subject. However, they have done so in their own right, as the section acknowledges. If this is significant research, it might make the academics notable, but not necessarily the organisation, since notability is not inherited. The second claim to notability is having organised a number of events, such as the international conference of the Basic Income Earth Network. There is not a single indication that this conference is either notable or significant. If there is no indication that the event is significant, there is also no indication that hosting the event is significant. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Less than two hours before, I removed some unfriendly comments by user from my talk page. This is his response. I will leave it to others to deal with it; of course I am willing to answer any questions. Guido den Broeder (talk) 07:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you please address the issues I have raised here? How does the research done by individual academics make an organisation they happen to be member of, notable? And how does hosting an event such as the one I mentioned make the organisation notable? Could you provide any reference of reliable sources that are independent of the subject covering the Vereniging Basisinkomen? Aecis^Brievenbus 13:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I could, but at the moment I lack the time, so I hope for other users to show up. Feel free to make an effort yourself, as well as to adjust the text if you think it suggests a coatrack. Obviously, the Vereniging itself has a certain goal, but the article should be neutral. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, a simple Google act seems to suffice and show notability.[1] Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Does it? I haven't been able to find any reliable source in the hits, and many hits are non-independent (announcements, press releases, etc.). Aecis^Brievenbus 20:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

And yet they are there. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Then which are the reliable sources in your opinion? Aecis^Brievenbus 20:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not going that road. It's up to you to make the effort. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I have been down that road, and I haven't been able to find anything. All I could find were press releases and announcements, and some coverage in non-reliable fringe media such as Ravage en Kleintje Muurkrant. So again: which reliable sources have covered Vereniging Basisinkomen? Aecis^Brievenbus 20:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC) [2][3] Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

And this is meant to show the notability of Vereniging Basisinkomen? Aecis^Brievenbus 21:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Just showing that you are wrong about these two. There are plenty more. Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

How exactly am I wrong about these two? Are these two magazines anything other than non-reliable fringe media? Aecis^Brievenbus 21:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I am quickly losing good faith here now. I strongly suggest that you remove the tag. This topic is far outside your usual area, anyway. Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I will remove the tag the moment you provide something that shows the notability of the subject. Coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, significant achievements by this organisation, anything. Aecis^Brievenbus 21:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the tag. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Lidorganisaties (per 1 mei 1989) Industrie- en Voedingsbond CNV Voedingsbond FNV Landelijk WAO-Beraad PPR Stichting Grondvest Agalev (Anders Gaan Leven) België Evangelische Volks Partij EVP BLUT Samenwerkingsverband Mensen Zonder (Betaald) Werk Landelijk Steunpunt Komitees Vrouwen in de Bijstand Werkgroep Basisinkomen PvdA UNO-Inkomen

Sympathiserende organisaties (per 1 mei 1989) Vrouwenbond FNV Stichting Weerwerk Collectief Charles Fournier Comité Groen, Geel en Giftig Stichting Steunbond Gemert Niet-Beroepsmatig Aktieven NBA Wormer Commissie Oriënteringsdagen Utrecht Stichting Ombudsvrouw Amsterdam Komitee Vrouwen in de Bijstand Roden Komitee Vrouwen in de Bijstand Winschoten RAJA Friesland Katholieke Onderwijs Vakorganisatie KOV Federatieve Vereniging Vrij Baan den haag WOZON Sittard

Leden van de Raad van Advies H.J. Achterhuis, sociaal-filosoof aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam en publicist over arbeidsethiek K. Adelmund, lid Federatiebestuur FNV H.S. Snijders-Borst, belastinginspecteur en lid van de Rooie Vrouwen van de PvdA EH. Trip, oud-minister van Wetenschapsbeleid MJ. Grotenhuis, senior-consultant veranderingsprojecten PTT en oud-secretaris van de Emancipatieraad S.L. Leeflang, medewerker van het tijdschrift Twaalf Ambachten en oprichter van De Kleine Aarde B. Nooteboom, hoogleraar Bedrijfskunde Rijksuniversiteit Groningen J.P. Pronk, Tweede-Kamerlid voor de PvdA S.L. Mansholt, oud-minister, oud-lid van de Europese Commissie en lid van de PvdA C. Schelling, oud-voorzitter Voedingsbond FNV Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Symposium Basisinkomen Utrecht

Senator Nele Lijnen steekt Vereniging Basisinkomen hart onder de riem [4]

Ter gelegenheid van het 15-jarig bestaan van de Vereniging Basisinkomen Nederland, werd op 19 januari jl. in Utrecht een jubileumsymposium gehouden. Voorzitter Michiel van Hasselt verwelkomde er de ‘vriendinnen en vrienden’ van de Vereniging Basisinkomen en was zeer verheugd met de aanwezigheid van Senator Nele Lijnen van Vivant.

Nadat mede-oprichtster en voormalig voorzitter Saar Boerlage een ere-lidmaatschap met applaus kreeg toegewezen, leidde Wim De Boer, voormalig fractievoorzitter van GroenLinks in de Eerste Kamer, een geanimeerd forum met reflectie op 15 jaar gedachte- en beleidsvorming rond het Basisinkomen in Nederland.

Hoewel alle sprekers geloof houden in het ideaal van een basisinkomen, deelden ze ook in verschillende mate een zeker scepticisme over de realisatie ervan. Terwijl in de jaren ’90 de tijdsgeest tegen zat, is het in de laatste jaren heel stil geworden rond het idee van het Basisinkomen. Geen enkele politiek partij durft of wil er zich voor engageren. Nochtans staat bijv. voormalig Minister van Financiën Zalm achter het Basisinkomen concept, omwille van zijn eenvoud en efficiëntie.

Verschillende strategiën werden besproken om het Basisinkomen op de agenda te krijgen of op termijn te kunnen realiseren. Professor Arjen van Witteloostuijn, verbonden aan de Universiteit Antwerpen, gaf aan hoe de ‘regelgeving ecologie’ een organische weerstand vormt tegen een vereenvoudigde structurele ingreep die voor het duurzaam invoeren van het Basisinkomen nodig is. Pas in of na een crisis, is er kans om radicaal in te grijpen en heel wat heilige huisjes te laten sneuvelen. Nu niet...

Tijdens het debat nam Senator Nele Lijnen het woord en gaf in een kort betoog aan waarom Vivant in België durft te streven naar de invoering van een vrijheidsinkomen en hoe dit ook stapsgewijs zou kunnen gerealiseerd worden. Zij verwees hier o.a. naar de passage van de ‘hervorming van de personenbelasting’ zoals Guy Verhofstadt die bepleit in zijn Vierde Burgermanifest. De eerste onbelaste schijf van 500 euro kan op termijn de ruimte creëren voor een algemeen aanvaard basisinkomen op dat niveau.

Senator Nele Lijnen benadrukte tot slot het universeel karakter van het recht op een basisinkomen en haar motiverende woorden kregen een warm instemmend applaus.

Ter afsluiting van de vragen- en discussieronde, presenteerde Patrick Colemont het ‘succesje’ van het 540-euro-briefje als campagne-middel en suggereerde hij aan de Vereniging Basisinkomen om jaarlijks een ‘Recht Op BasisINkomen’ of Robin – award uit te reiken aan een bekende Nederlander die het basisinkomen promoot.

Tijdens de aansluitende receptie interviewde VPRO-reporter Micha Boers een aantal sprekers en gasten voor het Radio 1 programma ‘de Ochtenden’. Dit ‘Interview’-verslag kan u horen via www.ochtenden.nl, dinsdag, 23 januari 2007, 32:35 tot 41:40.

Verslag: Patrick Colemont Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This is definitely not adequate. Any organisation can dump some text, it doesn't prove anything. Migdejong (talk) 11:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not a 'dumped text', and Vivant is not 'any organization'. Guido den Broeder (talk) 07:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Werkplaats and Vereniging

Officially recognised by BIEN [5]

Netherlands

VERENIGING BASISINKOMEN

The "Werkplaats Basisinkomen" was founded in October 1987 at the initiative of the food workers' Union Voedingsbond FNV to coordinate thinking and action on basic income in the Netherlands (where the debate goes back to the mid-seventies). The Werkplaats, which had only corporate members (Unions, claimants' associations, etc.), was supplemented in September 1991 by an association of "friends of basic income based on individual membership. Both merged in 1993 to form the current Vereniging Basisinkomen. In June 1993, the latter defined its strategy as follows: (1) The network aims at establishing a full basic income in the long run but supports other associations which propagate a partial basic income; (2) it views a partial basic income as a temporary goal; (3) it aims at a better distribution of paid and unpaid work; (4) it supports those who want to establish a basic income via a negative income tax. The association has organized many meetings. It publishes occasional brochures and a regular newsletter (which until 1991 was oddly called "Het werkt niet meer"). Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jubileum conference

[6] Op vrijdag 19 januari was er in Utrecht een jubileumconferentie van de Vereniging Basisinkomen onder het motto: ‘Basisinkomen: een houdbaar ideaal’. Houdbaar, volgens de folder, in de zin van verdedigbaarheid, maar ook in de zin van actueel, nog steeds relevant. De vereniging bestaat vijftien, ondertussen zestien, jaar, en heeft al die tijd geijverd voor de invoering van een basisinkomen, oftewel een ‘onvoorwaardelijk minimuminkomen voor iedere ingezetene van Nederland.’

In 1987 ontstond de Werkplaats Basisinkomen, die was verbonden aan de Voedingsbond. Saar Boerlage kwam vanuit de hoek van vrouwenstudies met anderen tot een zelfde idee. Toen deze twee initiatieven elkaar tegenkwamen is in 1991 de Vereniging van Vriendinnen en Vrienden van het Basisinkomen opgericht. De Vereniging Basisinkomen stelt zich heel breed op. De meeste leden zullen ongetwijfeld links zijn, maar, er wordt bijvoorbeeld net zoals binnen de tegenwoordige ‘linkse’ partijen, geen stelling genomen tegen het kapitalisme. Is een basisinkomen wel mogelijk binnen het huidige economische systeem? En stel dat het mogelijk is, betekent dat dan een zodanige verbetering van het systeem dat we zouden moeten concluderen dat ‘een kapitalisme met een sociaal gezicht’ of beter nog ‘een sociale inborst’ toch mogelijk is? Of hollen we (sssst!) via het basisinkomen het kapitalisme langzaam uit…?

...

national radio coverage Guido den Broeder (talk) 09:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

BIEN newsflash/Spanish website [7]

Vereniging Basisinkomen (2007), Terugblik op 15 jaar Vereniging Basisinkomen, Special issue of Vereniging basisinkomen nieuwsbrief, 48, april 2007, 27p.

On the occasion of its 15th anniversary, The "Association Basic Income" (Vereniging Basisinkomen in Dutch) - officially recognized by BIEN - has published a special issue of its newsletter. Among other texts, it includes an interesting account of a panel discussion held in Utrecht on January 19, 2007, between three of the most prominent basic income advocates in the Netherlands: Greetje Lubbi (former leader of the Union of Food Workers, which was the main institutional support of basic income during the eighties), Paul de Beer (one of the founding fathers of the Association, currently Professor at the University of Amsterdam, http://www.pauldebeer.nl), and Robert van der Veen (Political philosopher at the University of Amsterdam, and one of the leading theorists on basic income). Whereas Robert van der Veen and, to a lesser extent, Greetje Lubbi, remain cautiously optimistic regarding the prospects of basic income in the Netherlands, Paul de Beer is much more negative. He even suggests that basic income supporters should go for what he calls the "fridge strategy": one should give priority to more modest reforms, and forget about basic income for a while (hence the suggestion of putting the idea "in the fridge"). This special issue also includes a thorough interview with Saar Boerlage, green activist and former head of the Association Basic Income. Guido den Broeder (talk) 11:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sociale databank

[8] Enige leden van de Vereniging Basisinkomen hebben met hulp van deskundigen op het terrein van economie, belastingheffing en gedragswetenschappen, het laatste jaar een systeem ontwikkeld, dat noch 'uitsluiting' noch 'uitbuiting' tot resultaat lijkt te hebben. Zonder dat de minima er op achteruitgaan, de schatkist geplunderd wordt of de concurrentiepositie van ons land op het spel wordt gezet, kan een volledig basisinkomen worden gerealiseerd.

... Guido den Broeder (talk) 09:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vivant

[9] Saar Boerlage, ere-lid van de Vereniging Basisinkomen in Nederland, is de derde genomineerde voor de "Open Parachute"-prijs van Vivant.

Zij heeft als mede-oprichtster van de 'Vereniging van Vriendinnen en Vrienden van het Basisinkomen', sedert 1991 een onmisbare functie vervuld in de continuïteit en kwaliteit van de vereniging. Vivant erkent hiermee ook de inspanningen en openheid van de Vereniging Basisinkomen, in het streven naar een groter draagvlak voor de invoering van het Basisinkomen in Nederland. (With this nomination) Vivant also recognizes the efforts and openness of the Vereniging Basisinkomen in the strive for larger support for the introduction of a basic income.Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hoewel prominenten zoals Gerrit Zalm, Marcel van Dam en Erica Terpstra in het verleden reeds als voorstander van een Basisinkomen stonden genoteerd, verstomde de roep om een Basisinkomen in Nederland in de voorbije jaren. Dat het open denken erover niet stilstond en het Basisinkomen een houdbaar ideaal is gebleven, bewees de Vereniging Basisinkomen met haar Jubileummanifestatie op 19 januari 2007. Saar Boerlage kreeg op dit symposium het 'ere-lidmaatschap' toegewezen.

U kan een verslag lezen van dit Jubileumsymposium in het actueel-archief. Aanvullende informatie vindt u op www.basisinkomen.nl. Guido den Broeder (talk) 09:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

No idea what this means. Can't tell if it's meaningful for the page or not. Most editors don't read Dutch so you'll either have to find a Dutch-speaking editor or provide a translation. WLU (talk) 14:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming this is Vivant? It's Belgian, it's small, but it's still a political party so I'll be persuaded by an award. WLU (talk) 17:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It says that an honorary member of VBI, Saar Boerlage, was nominee ("genomineerde") for the Vivant's Open Parachute award. This is indeed the Belgian political party, but afaict she was only nominated, i.e. she didn't win. Aecis^Brievenbus 18:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nationwide school exam

[10] De Vereniging Basisinkomen Nederland (VBI) stelde voor om alle sociale uitkeringen eninkomensafhankelijke subsidies af te schaffen en te vervangen door een basisinkomen. In een in 1998 gepubliceerde studie deed de VBI, in vereenvoudigde vorm, het volgendevoorstel:

1. Elke Nederlander van 23 jaar en ouder ontvangt een basisinkomen van 600 euro permaand.
2. Om de basisinkomens te financieren wordt voorgesteld: (table)

• Geef een voorbeeld van een inkomensafhankelijke subsidie.
• Noem een onderdeel van de voorgestelde vereenvoudiging van de inkomstenbelasting datdenivellerend kan werken op de secundaire inkomensverdeling.
• Leg uit op welke manier een ander onderdeel van de voorgestelde vereenvoudiging van deinkomstenbelasting nivellerend kan werken op de secundaire inkomensverdeling.

Volgens de studie van de VBI zouden in 1998 12 miljoen mensen recht hebben op eenbasisinkomen. De genoemde maatregelen zouden niet genoeg opbrengen om deze basisinkomens te financieren. Derhalve werd voorgesteld een milieuheffing opkapitaalgoederen in te voeren om het financieringsgat te dichten. Een dergelijke heffing zou tevens kunnen leiden tot een verlaging van de i/a-ratio.

• Bereken het bedrag dat de milieuheffing in 1998 moest opbrengen om de financiering vanhet basisinkomen rond te krijgen.
• Leg uit waarom een milieuheffing op kapitaalgoederen past in een beleid dat er opgericht is de i/a-ratio te verlagen.maatregel’opbrengst’ in euro’svereenvoudiging van de inkomstenbelasting:
  • a: de bestaande schijven van 38%, 50% en 60% vervangen door één tarief van 44% 8 miljard
  • b: afschaffing van alle aftrekposten 15 miljard
  • c: afschaffing van de belastingvrije som 13 miljardafschaffing van alle sociale uitkeringen en inkomensafhankelijke subsidies 32 miljard Guido den Broeder (talk) 10:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DISK conference

[11] Een workshop besprak onder leiding van Joop Roebroek, de voorzitter van arbeidspastoraat DISK, de mogelijkheid van een basisinkomen of negatief belastinginkomen. Loek Groot, namens de Vereniging Basisinkomen en werkzaam aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam (Siswo) gaf met schema’s aan, dat de beide systemen niet veel van elkaar verschillen. “Technisch is invoering mogelijk: je moet het alleen politiek willen”. De deelnemers spraken zich ervoor uit, dat dit basisinkomen minstens 1000 euro per maand diende te zijn. Hub Crijns, directeur van landelijk bureau DISK, besprak de mogelijkheid om naast een minimuminkomen ook een grens voor het maximuminkomen in te stellen. De conferentiedeelnemers kozen ervoor om die grens te leggen bovenaan het inkomensgebouw van de CAO’s, dus op 250.000 euro. Guido den Broeder (talk) 10:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Noordwijk international Vereniging Basisinkomen conference

BIEN newsletter [12]

CONGRES BASISINKOMEN Noordwijk (NL), 23-24 February 1996 A major conference organized by the Dutch basic Income Network. The first day will focus on the significance of basic income for business, social insurance, environmental policy and poverty. The second day will focus on a simulation model of the financing of a basic income and its labour market effects. Speakers will include Wouter van Dieren, Greetje Lubbi and Jan Stroeken. Guido den Broeder (talk) 10:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

BIEN newsletter [13]

DEN BROEDER, Guido, DE BEER, Paul & GROOT, Loek, FRISBI 1.0, software available on a floppy produced by Magnana Mu Publishing & Research (Rotterdam). FRISBI is a simulation model designed to study the effects of the replacement of current unemployment benefits by a (low/medium/high) basic income on the labour market and on the distribution of net income. It was presented at The Dutch Basic Income Network's Conference in Noordwijk (23-24 February 1996) and at a research seminar in Antwerp (22 May 1996). In its present version, it contains a highly stylized description of the Dutch population and economy. There are a number of parameters for which users can choose one of three values (typically high, low, medium): they include average age, average education level, openness of the economy, elasticity of labour supply, size of the social security system. FRISBI enables users to easily check the impact of such choices on the labour market (e.g. gender- and skill-specific rates of unemployment) and on the distribution of net income (e.g. between benefits, net wages and profits). It thereby provides a promising tool for bridging the gap between scientific research and policy concerns. One of its main limitations, in its present version, is that it does not incorporate any effect changes may have on the aggregate level of output (total value added is assumed to be constant, whatever the respective shares of profits, wages and benefits). Guido den Broeder (talk) 10:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Amsterdam 1998 BIEN Conference

[14] The 7th International Congress of the Basic Income European Network was held on 10-12 September 1998 in a marvellous 18th century building which used to house the central committee of the Dutch communist party before being taken over by the University of Amsterdam. The local organisation was expected to be first-rate, and so it was, under the committed and competent leadership of Robert van der Veen (University of Amsterdam), Paul de Beer (Social and Cultural Planning Bureau), Loek Groot (University of Utrecht), and Saar Boerlage and Emiel Schaefer (both Vereniging Basisinkomen). As usual, the congress was also the occasion for a well attended General Assembly meeting, the minutes of which appear below.

Note: Robert van der Veen, Paul de Beer and Loek Groot are also members of the vereniging.

... Guido den Broeder (talk) 10:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Université catholique de Louvain

Interview with Philippe van Parijs [15]

Le Werkplaats Basisinkomen, aujourd'hui rebaptisé Vereniging Basisinkomen spécialisée relative aux dimensions éthiques aussi bien qu'aux dimensions économiques du débat s'estconsidérablement étoffée. Guido den Broeder (talk) 11:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Natuurwetpartij

Election programme 1998 of the Natuurwetpartij[16]

Uit berekeningen verricht door de Vereniging Basisinkomen blijkt dat de invoering van een algemeen basisinkomen financieel haalbaar is. haalbaar is. Het basisinkomen wordt gefinancierd uit de algemene middelen.

...

De uitvoering van de sociale zekerheid wordt eenvoudiger. Er zijn minder overdrachtsuitgaven,aangezien in een aantal gevallen het basisinkomen weggestreept wordt tegen subsidies (zoals huursubsidie en dergelijke). Dit levert een besparing op de kosten van uitvoering van de sociale zekerheid op (door Vereniging Basisinkomen geraamd op 8 miljard gulden). Guido den Broeder (talk) 11:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Babel fish turns up this as a translation:

“

From calculations performs by the association basic income (Vereniging Basisinkomen) appears that the setting-up of a general basic income is financially feasable feasable is. The basic income is financed from the general resources. ... The implementation of the social security becomes simple. There are less transfer expenditure, since in a number of cases the basic income is crossed off against subsidies (such as housing benefit and such). This produces a saving on the costs of implementation of the social security (estimated by association basic income (Vereniging Basisinkomen) on 8 billion guilder).

”

This establishes notability for me. WLU (talk) 12:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The translation is fairly accurate (which is surprising for Babelfish :), but I'm a bit more reluctant than you are. I'm not convinced that this establishes the notability of VBI. There are two very, very brief (close to passing) mentions of the VBI in the 180+ page document of a fringe political party. Keep in mind that the 1998 elections were the only elections in which the party took part, and they got 0.00183% of the votes. They haven't taken part in any other election. Aecis^Brievenbus 17:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] further vivant discussion

Combined with everything else, it scrapped the page by for me but your analysis is making me reconsider. Have you seen the #Vivant section above? When I saw this document I thought it was talking about the Vivant award (I get confused) and once I realized this was probably a Natural Law Party (we had one in Canada, and as you might expect they were nutjobs) I started to worry. I'd still say that the mention by a political party that got ANY votes is enough to scrape it by, and now that I've edited the page I don't want my edit count to drop! Let me know your thoughts on vivant, please! WLU (talk) 17:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The Vivant section above says that one VBI member was nominated for an award, not VBI itself. This is a fairly insignificant award, and afaict she didn't win. I don't know who won though. Aecis^Brievenbus 18:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Well that doesn't make my job any easier, does it? WLU (talk) 18:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

"(With this nomination) Vivant also recognizes the efforts and openness of the Vereniging Basisinkomen in the strive for larger support for the introduction of a basic income." Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It still is only a nomination for an insignificant or barely significant award. Aecis^Brievenbus 20:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The award does not matter here, it's the nominator that counts. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Does it? I beg to differ. But let's include Vivant, just for the sake of the argument: VBI is only a nominee for an insignificant award from an only somewhat notable party. I fail to see how that makes VBI notable. That's a general problem with the sources you have provided: there's a lot of fluff (for lack of a better word), but very little that would establish notability. Aecis^Brievenbus 22:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You have not yet commented on the larger parties that recognize the organisation, like the PvdA. Guido den Broeder (talk) 08:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

No, that wouldn't make them notable, no. It verifies that the organisation exists, yes, but no editor has doubted that. Aecis^Brievenbus 19:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

(ud)Another concern - is it VBI that is nominated, or a person who happens to be a member of VBI? Big difference - one establishes notability for the org, one for the person. WLU (talk) 12:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

A member of VBI was nominated for the award, partly for the work that she has done for VBI. Aecis^Brievenbus 19:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bold changes

I've boldly changed the page, mostly removing the coatracking for Dutch basic income (I think there is a potential page for that, but here is not the appropriate place) and the irrelevant information about members who have published independently (unless their work was published by VB, it's irrelevant here). I've also removed the 'further reading' section - every work mentioned VB only briefly and based on my reading you couldn't get any extra information from the sources about the association itself. The text that demonstrates notability for me (the Dutch Natural Law party(?)'s recognition of VB's work) is at the bottom of the 'proposals' section. WLU (talk) 14:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look it over in a couple of days (have an emergency to deal with first). Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References

Please do not remove any references at this time. I'm happy for an unintentional mistake but as many of the references are cited in the Afd discussion, removal seems inappropriate while an Afd is in progress. SunCreator (talk) 00:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

They are not used to directly reference something in the article, so they shouldn't be in the references section. I have moved them to a separate section. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. SunCreator (talk) 01:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Further reading

I've removed the further reading section, and here is why - the MOS guide to layout states that the further reading section should contain "...any books, articles, web pages, et cetera that you recommend as further reading, useful background, or sources of further information to readers [and] is generally for resources on the topic that are not specifically cited in the article." None of these reference provide any real information on VBI. In particular, the first mentions VBI in the acknowledgment section - there's no information there. Two mention VBI just as one of many potential web resources, essentially 'in the Netherlands, this organization exists'. The German I can't say because I can't read, but the mention is again a single one, and I don't believe it's an appropriate further reading, though if someone could figure out what it said, it could be a good reference. The 1998 electoral program is also a very brief mention, but in addition it is already embedded as the seventh reference and FR should not duplicate the references (particularly when it's not an extensive discussion but just a mention). The same goes for the BIEN network's mention of VBI - its reference 4. The speech by Parijs is a single mention in a footnote, also a bad choice for further reading, but I will integrate it as a reference shortly. Again, further reading is for background or further information - none of these provide anything remotely extensive,and are best used as references if possible. The four books are a concern only because of their use and mention in the AFD, but I can not see a way of integrating them as references - if someone else can, they should be placed as inline citations in the body, not in a separate section. WLU (talk) 11:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Basic Income on the Agenda: Policy Objectives and Political Chances by Loek Groot and Robert van der Veen.
• Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Hoffnung: Reformfähigkeit und die by Helmut Wiesenthal, Petra Shtykov and Jürgen Beyer.
• Face au déclin: le choix d'une France fédérale, démocratique, pluraliste by Noël Communod.
• Ending Poverty: A Basic Income for All Canadians by François Bla.

Note that the links below this comment are all embedded as inline citations in the text and per the GTL should not be cited again in a separate section. WLU (talk) 11:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Election programme 1998 of the Natuurwetpartij (Dutch)
• Officially recognised by BIEN
• Interview with Philippe van Parijs (French)

[edit] COI

That the COI has been resolved is not for the COI-editor to decide. It should be discussed here first, when consensus has been reached, then it is removed. WLU (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I am, however, not the writer of the present text, and therefore not 'the COI editor'. The template indicates that you have a COI, which is obviously not true. However, by adding the template again you are in fact declaring that you do have a COI. Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

From the {{COI}} template: "The creator of this article, or someone who has substantially contributed to it" - that is you on both counts as you created, and contributed greatly to the article. And it says 'someone', not 'the most recent editor'. And irrespective, discussion needs to happen. I may think it's neutral, but I am not the only editor on the main or talk page. WLU (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I am the creator of the page, not of the current article. Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You created a page which is in the Main namespace and it happens to be an article (or do you regard it to be a disambiguation page, a redirect or something else?). As quite often in Wikipedia, others have changed the text since the article was created. Although others edited in this article to me it looks to be quite obvious your are still regarded to be the creator of the article (not necessarily the current article). It was not deleted or renamed since you created the article, so if not you, who should be seen as the creator? From the history it is also clear you did not only create the article, you also did a lot of edits in it and added a lot of contents. User WLU rewrote parts of the article and removed some other parts but my guess is, he didn't add a lot of information that wasn't in the article before he started editing it. Maybe he can confirm this. The fact that he regards you to be a person who "contributed greatly to the article" seems to confirm my guess. Had he completely written the article from scratch without looking at the original then we had a different situation. Therefor I think it is realistic to see you both as the creator of the article and as someone who has substantially contributed to it. - Robotje (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The difference between the old article and the present one is easy to see, you don't need to speculate. [17]. It matters not though. Since WLU has declared a COI of his own by re-adding the template, I cannot remove it anymore, even though I know it to be erroneous. Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't declared a COI, my action was to reinstante a template that you removed twice, where the first instance was reverted. My purpose is to start the discussion to see if other editors agree the page is no longer COI. You have yet to say 'do other people think the page still has COI issues'. Consider asking the question. You may think it is erroneous - do others? I would venture that you have no idea. WLU (talk) 17:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Start away, it does not interest me. My only intention was not to mislead the reader about you, but I guess that good intentions once again go unappreciated. Guido den Broeder (talk) 18:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

A lot of text in the current version can be found identical or almost identical in the previous version written by Guido. So I still see a COI. The comparing function of the wiki-software compares line by line and if lines are almost identical it will show the minor differences within the lines. If the comparing function cannot resynchronize then it looks like a bigger difference than in fact it is. - Robotje (talk) 18:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that the word "the" can be found in both versions. It is nonetheless a completely different article now than the one I wrote, clearly attributable to WLU, and an article that I would not want credit for. Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Guido den Broeder, really not for you to remove a COI notice that applies to yourself - this is a community view as stated above and at Wikipedia:COI/N#Guido_den_Broeder_vs._others (for which you cannot excuse yourself by declining to listen). As such consider yourself WP:banned from the article and polite discussion here on the talk page[18]. David Ruben ^Talk 13:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I have already explained that it does not apply to me at all, thank you. If I had thought it did, I would not have removed it. Did you not read my edit summary? What happened to WP:AGF? Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

As the AN/I review got archived after several admins critisized your approach, I assume that the article ban is off. Guido den Broeder (talk) 07:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] arb

I have filed a request for arbitration at [19]. Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent)That seems premature. Have you read Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Prior_steps where it says "it is expected that other avenues of dispute resolution will have been exhausted before a case is filed"? WLU (talk) 17:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I asked at the help desk. They directed me to arbitration. Wouldn't surprise me at all if I got redirected again... Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think your case is almost certain to be rejected. Arbitration is very serious by the way. You may be thinking of the appeals process or possibly mediation, arbitration is the last stop and not actually mentioned in the help desk section from what I've seen. Again, arbitration is where hope and editors go to die after everything else has been tried. I don't think this is the case. WLU (talk) 17:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

In my experience elswehere, arbitration cases have a way of dying themselves... But with no knowledge of what is expected, all I can do is follow directions. Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Guido is referring to arbitration cases elsewhere which is probably at the Dutch Wikipedia. Earlier this month Guido filed in a few days time 3 different cases at the Dutch arbitration committee (against the user Migdejong (4 apr 2008 21:17) and the sysops MoiraMoira (8 apr 2008 09:30) and JacobH (8 apr 2008 11:16)). All three cases involved self references made by Guido in articles. In all these cases his requests were turned down yesterday and every time it was turned down partially because his mentor forbid him to put self-references in the articles without prior permission of his mentor. So, although Guido recently stated on this Wikipedia he has not been assigned a mentor on the Dutch Wikipedia, the local arbitration committee thinks differently. Filing 3 cases in a few days by one individual is also unheard of for the Dutch arbitration committee. In the 6 month period from September 1st, 2007 to February 29th, 2008 there were only 17 cases in total. - Robotje (talk) 14:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Please remove this comment since (beside being false and defamatory) it has no place here. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Two remarks:

1. User WLU mentioned you should see filing a case at the arbitration committee as the ultimate step if all other options really run out which is also true for the Dutch Wikipedia. Nevertheless you filed 3 cases there in only a few days time and all three were turned down. To me that seems to be relevant background information.
2. You stated my edit contains false information. Please specify what is false.

Best regards, Robotje (talk) 14:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This is en:Wikipedia. Remove your comments. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I know this is the English Wikipedia, but what is the false information? - Robotje (talk) 14:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Robotje, this is English Wikipedia with polices, guidelines and adminstrative processes that will be quite different from other-language Wikipedia and I have to agree with Guido den Broeder's request[20] for you to stop this line of discussion here. Whilst brief mention (of another wikipedia or indeed some other source) might be warrented if say GB had falsely claimed ignorance of say need for civility in online communities, actions in implementing certain processes on Dutch Wikipedia should not be grounds for attacking another editor here (for all I know he may have diligently followed Dutch Wikipedia guidelines in filing RFARs). This is a talk page for Vereniging Basisinkomen, and not place to discuss Guido den Broeder himself - for which use his talk page or for actions undertaken here in English Wikipedia WP:AN/I. David Ruben ^Talk 23:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I got your point. On the other hand I'm still curious what false statement I was supposed to have made according to Guido, but that can be handled on a different page. - Robotje (talk) 05:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Origins

WLU has written:

• The idea of a guaranteed minimum income was supported by the GreenLeft political party, who included a proposal for a partial minimum income in their 1998-2002 electoral program.

It was not a proposal for a partial minimum income, but for a partial basic income. The two are not the same. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• After the Dutch government rejected a proposal introducing a partial basic income in 1985

This should be properly sourced. The reference to the WRR report can be found in the page's history. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses the term guaranteed minimum income, though given the lead of that section, it's arguable per WP:CSB that a more world-wide title is appropriate. What's the difference between a PMI and a PBI?

Provide the source, there's a lot of history. WLU (talk) 17:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid (1985), "Waarborgen voor Zekerheid", Staatsuitgeverij, The Hague (guarantees for security) Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Activities

WLU has written:

• VBI members also helped organize the 7th Biannual International Congress of the Basic Income Earth Network in Amsterdam in 1998

This is not correctly presented. The VBI was one of the two organizing institutes, the other being the university (which provided the accomodation). Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The source states "The local organisation was expected to be first-rate, and so it was, under the committed and competent leadership of Robert van der Veen (University of Amsterdam), Paul de Beer (Social and Cultural Planning Bureau), Loek Groot (University of Utrecht), and Saar Boerlage and Emiel Schaefer (both Vereniging Basisinkomen). " That's two universities, two organizations, and the organizers were mentioned by name. What alternative wording would you suggest? WLU (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Persons mentioned by this source (4 VBI members and one VBI employee) formed the Organizing Committee. A more adequate statement would be: VBI and the University of Amsterdam jointly organized the 7th Biannual International Congress of the Basic Income Earth Network in Amsterdam in 1998. Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The source does not say 4 VBI members and 1 employee. It says 2 people from VBI and 3 others who are not from VIB. We report verifiability, not truth. WLU (talk) 17:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, you chose the source. The Call for Papers has VBI and UvA on the front page, and members and employees can be found in the official VBI records. Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a WP:SYNTH to me. WLU (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It is nonetheless verifiable. Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

If it's a synthesis, it is original research, and original research is by definition not verifiable in the Wikipedia sense of the word. Aecis^Brievenbus 21:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

And if it's not, it's not. Guido den Broeder (talk) 08:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposals

WLU has written:

• Proposals for a guaranteed minimum income

The proper term is basic income.

• Vereniging Basisinkomen supports the funding of a guaranteed minimum income through revenues gathered from natural resources and government properties redistributed in the form of a citizen's dividend...

This is misleading, as the Vereniging has not tied itself to one specific way of funding.

• Specific suggestions include a reduction of the age required to acquire a state pension...

Missing in this sentence is what these suggestions are for. They are suggestions of how to arrive at a basic income.

• The association has been recognized by the Dutch political party Natuurwetpartij for their work on the feasibility of a basic income in The Netherlands

At least the Belgian political party Vivant should be mentioned here as well. It has been recognized as such by quite a few more political parties, too; we only don't have a good source yet. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

1. On wikipedia, the term used is GMI. A pipe could be discussed, but what's the difference? Wikipedia uses its terminology, without a good reason there's no need to keep splitting between the two.
2. Noted, adjusted.
3. What do you mean by 'arrive at a basic income'? How to calculate, or how to deliver? Better yet, what does the pamphlet say?
4. As in the AFD discussion, must demonstrate that she was nominated for her activities as a VBI member, not nominated with VBI as one of her activities. Don't speak Dutch, need someone else to review. Other additions await mention until sources are provided. I leave it to Aecis to determine this, though we could as JdfWolff as well. Though Aecis is an admin, I see no reason to not assume good faith at his/her interpretation.

Please do not keep saying "WLU has written" rather than "the page says". Many people have written many things, and the text changes. The current version singles me out as if everything is my fault and my responsibility. I dislike this. WLU (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• The difference between basic income and guaranteed minimum income is that a basic income is by definition unconditional. This is key to its advocates.
• Arrive at denotes the transition from the present system to a system with a basic income.
• Vivant explicitly declared that with this nomination they also recognized the work of VBI.

Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Per your second bullet, I've adjusted. For the first I'd need to see a source and probably brush up on GMI, per the third I'm leaving this to Aecis, I don't speak Dutch and I'm not an admin. WLU (talk) 17:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is a good source for an example of a conditional GMI (Rumania: community service condition) [21].

Vivant says: "Vivant erkent hiermee ook de inspanningen en openheid van de Vereniging Basisinkomen, in het streven naar een groter draagvlak voor de invoering van het Basisinkomen in Nederland." (With this nomination) Vivant also recognizes the efforts and openness of the Vereniging Basisinkomen in the strive for larger support for the introduction of a basic income. Guido den Broeder (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Still waiting for your response. Guido den Broeder (talk) 08:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Still waiting for your response. Note that the Dutch political party De Groenen also recognizes the Vereniging's work.[22]. Guido den Broeder (talk) 08:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

De Groenen, which has achieved no actual national representation? That's like getting a PhD from a diploma mill for me. So what?

My response to the Vivant information is, what do you want to say about VBI? That an honorary member was nominated for an award, by a marginal political party from a different country, that it did not win? Since I don't speak Dutch, I am unwilling to do anything with this. I will alert Aecis to this discussion and leave it in his hands. He's an admin, he's Dutch, and he's aware of the situation. That is my response. WLU (talk) 14:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Info on 'De Groenen' can be found on The Greens (Netherlands). They have been represented in the senate. The text, I think, could read: "The association has been recognized by the Dutch political parties Natuurwetpartij en De Groenen for their work on the feasibility of a basic income in The Netherlands, and by the Belgian political party Vivant for their efforts to generate support for the introduction of a basic income." Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I can agree with WLU, the political parties noted by Guido den Broeder are very marginal. JacobH (talk) 10:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record: the Greens have NOT been part of Dutch parliament. They have had a maximum of 10 seats combined for all Dutch municipalities, and provinces. The one seat in the Dutch senate was one seat, combined with many, many more provincial parties. Very marginal (even though I voted for them once). Migdejong (talk) 13:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

They are marginal, are they so marginal that it's not worth mentioning? I'm of the inclination to say 'no'. The coverage and sources are trivial in my mind, as are the awards and political parties that purport to praise them. WLU (talk) 13:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion: WikiProject Netherlands

Editors may want to ask for help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Netherlands ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)