Talk:Matthias Storme

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Controversies / Viewpoints[edit]

It is a simple fact that Storme's viewpoints are considered "controversial" by the vast majority of people. Using the word "viewpoints" instead is not opportune, because Storme has more viewpoints than the three briefly explained in the article.

The word "controversies" is neutral enough to be used in this article.

Berchemboy monday 5 jun 2006 23:00 (GMT)

Wikipedia editors cannot ascertain if an actual controversy exist. Intangible 22:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Far-right[edit]

I can accept the omission of "extremist" but - for the sake of clarity and correctness - will maintain the word "far-right" (instead of "right-extremist") when discribing the Vlaams Belang. It is just a fact, without making a statement about the party.

Berchemboy monday 5 jun 2006 23:00 (GMT)

It's not a fact, it's opinion based on a consensual definition. Intangible 22:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive / Left[edit]

The word "progressive" is incorrect to talk about the Belgian left, because several so-called conservatives often also defend "progressive" policies. Every change is always "progressive", even if the change is inspired by conservative reasons.

Several libertarians for exemple support Storme on the one hand, and defend progressive viewpoints on the other hand. The words "Belgian left" are hence better than "progressive".

Berchemboy monday 5 jun 2006 23:00 (GMT)

Progressive in this case means egalitarianism. Intangible 22:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism by the leftist establishment[edit]

I feel we need two references :

  1. That he is being criticised by the "leftist establishment" (whatever that may be)
  2. And that he's being criticised for his viewpoints on Flemish independence.

The present quote only is a reference for his viewpoints of Flemish independence, not for the criticism for that viewpoint. --LucVerhelst 14:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"such as" Flemish independence --> Storme was critized for all four "controversies". Berchemboy 14:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then why single out the least controversial ?
I commented out your refs from the Katholiek Nieuwsblad and Résistances, for a number of reasons :
  • the Katholiek Nieuwsblad only mentions 'gevestigde machten' = 'sitting powers' = establishment. I didn't find a reference to "leftist" or "egalitarian".
  • Furthermore : those 'gevestigde machten' look like the words of Storme himself, I'd rather see an independent source for the statement.
  • Résistances can hardly be called 'establishment', can they ? And I wouldn't be to sure to say that they're 'egalitarian' either, they're just anti-fascists.
--LucVerhelst 21:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Frankly, I wasn't pleased with you asking citations for almost every adjective, like e.g. "prestigious" concerning the Prize of Liberty, in the article and wanted to counter it by adding as soon as possible the requested citations. In my rush, I added these references too soon. I will try to find other - and better - citations. Berchemboy 21:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oops ! I added the section on the award and leo delcroix before reading this last paragraph...
I really don't think Matthias Storme deserves propaganda or hidden messages in an encyclopedic article on himself. The whole truth, and nothing but the truth should be more than enough to paint an excellent picture of him.
Using these adjectives gives the impression he needs "building" up, while I don't think that's necessary. --LucVerhelst 21:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Vincent, but I still have trouble with the new refs you provided.
  • the Humanité article doesn't mention any criticism by anyone. To the contrary, it could easily be used if you would try and prove that Storme got the establishment behind him in his attack on the Belgian state.
  • as for the Groen!-statement : using that would mean you're doing original research, which is not allowed. Anyway, Groen! really isn't establishment either, is it ? --LucVerhelst 08:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the criticism on Storme is on his support for the far right Vlaams Belang party. I don't recall other controversial points of view from him.
That's why I would want to change the intro of the "Controversies" section. Something along these lines :
Although Storme is a member of the secessionist party N-VA, he stands very close to the Vlaams Belang. Vlaams Belang floor leaders Gerolf Annemans (MP) and Philip Claeys (MEP) stressed the good relationship between Matthias Storme and their party. Philip Claeys: "They don't have to vote for us, but each in their area of expertise proclaim ideas that are similar to ours. Only that way we can show that we are not isolated. (...) It's important that people see that our party also has relations with the academic world, and with people with responsibilities in society."[1] Storme opposes the cordon sanitaire installed around this nationalist political party.[2]
Already in the 1990's, Storme called the Vlaams Blok, the predecessor of the Vlaams Belang that in 2004 was condemned for incitation to racism, a democratic party,[3] and the trial in question he called a "political trial".[2]
For this political stance he has been heavily criticised by Belgian left wing and anti racism organisations.[4][5]
  1. ^ (in Dutch) "De ketchup van het Vlaams Belang"("Vlaams Belang's ketchup"), Knack, 17 November 2004 (subscription needed) - (in Dutch) "De neoconservatieve mosterd van Gerolf Annemans en Philip Dewinter" ("The neoconservative mustard of Gerolf Annemans and Philip Dewinter"), De Morgen, 17 November 2004.
  2. ^ a b (in Dutch)Discrimineren is een mensenrecht (Discrimination is a human right), Katholiek Nieuwsblad, 21 January 2005
  3. ^ (in French) "Coup de poignard à l'Etat belge"("Stabbing the Belgian state"), L'Humanité, 19 November 1998.
  4. ^ (in Dutch) "De zaak Storme : de feiten"("The Storme case : the facts"), Jong GROEN reaction on an article published in Veto, 3 May 2004.
  5. ^ (in French) "Enquête sur un lobby politique nationaliste flamand contre le cordon sanitaire"("Investigating the Flemish-nationalist political lobby against the cordon sanitaire").
--LucVerhelst 09:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem with your suggestion. In my opinion, be free to change the "controversies"-intro. I do not see any content differences, so I haven't any problem at all with your "new" introduction test, except for one point.
I do not see the added value of putting the quotes of Annemans and Claeys in the text. I would rather put them in the reference notes, where they belong. They simply stress the good understanding between Storme and the VB.
I will copy and paste your new intro into the article. I have added "(MP)" en "(MEP)" to give the readers more information on both VB-politicians. I hope everything is settled now. Berchemboy 10:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Nice working with you. --LucVerhelst 11:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Prestigious award"[edit]

I see that you are quoting Leo Delcroix - of all people - to prove the award Storme received is "prestigious". Are you serious ? Delcroix is the laughing stock of Belgian politics. And you surely can't use him as a reputable source, can you, knowing the "financial and legal problems" he has had ?

I believe we can better just remove the word "prestigious". It's a peacock term, to be avoided. What do you think ? --LucVerhelst 21:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allright, maybe the adjective is unnecessary, but the prestigious character of the prize is undisputable. Every year, more than hundred people, from the highest spheres of society, gather in one of the most distinguished ballrooms of Brussels (this year in "De Warande" building, last year in the Concert Noble, ...) to award the Prize. Every time, the prize-winner came in person to accept the award, even giving a lecture for the audience. Knowing that the Dutch Hirsi Ali (MP) and Luuk Middelaar (philosopher) both made the trip from their hometowns to Brussels, is a proof of the "prestigiousness" of the Prize. Especially in Belgium, where there are few real "prizes" and "awards" to win, the Prize of Liberty is foremost one of the most prestigious. Therefor, I don't find the adjective misplaced. Nevertheless, I will erase it, because an encyclopedia indeed does not need to many "meaningless" adjectives. Berchemboy 22:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Matthias Storme. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Matthias_Storme&oldid=1205645461"