Talk:Reformed Political Party

ChristenUnie

Cerrtainly, ChristenUnie can't be called a rightwing party. They're conservative in some respects, but modern, environmentalist and even socialist in other respects. The dutch article on SGP calls these two the 'small christian parties', which sounds more appropriate. DirkvdM July 4, 2005 19:48 (UTC)

Wiki213ip

Dear user:Wiki213ip. First you made a rather strange edit with the comment 'who corrects me'. So I assumed this was meant as a joke and picked up the glove (by reverting your edit). To this you reacted by 'threatening' me in my talk page (gee, I'm scared...). What are you on about? What left-wing propaganda? I didn't add anything, just reverted your edit (which was absurd; SGP is like the Republicans in the US? The US is a right wing country, but not to that extreme). So I've re-reverted your re-edit. Let me guess your next move. Don't be too predictable and talk to me first here. Use good argumentation and I'm open to anything. DirkvdM 20:03, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect, but what party do you think can measure up to the Anglo-Saxon model? The SGP isn't as radical as you think. They may have hard-christian values, but so does conservatif-Republicans and rightwing-Conservatives in Brittain. I think you're not up to date with you're knowledge of Brittish-American politics. And also with those inside you're own country. Let me guess; you're a PVDA or a SP voter. Greetings bro. Wiki213ip 20:33, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Close, but not accurate, and above all irrelevant. But to the issue. The problem is that there is no equivalent of SGP in the UK or the US that I know of. In the US there is little beside the Republicans and the Democrats. And you're right, I don't know enough about the Republicans and SGP to say how much alike they are, but the first article of the program of the SGP consists of a reference to an old text (wipe out all idolatry and false religion) that was at least originally aimed at catholics. And that says enough for me to conclude that I don't want to know more about this party (if that's their attitude towards fellow christians, then how do they feel about other religions or even atheists?). The Republicans may be hard right wing, but if they had a policy like that I'm sure I would know about it. As for the UK, I don't know. There are just too many parties to check them all out. But as for the Conservative Party, the reasoning is the same as for the Republicans in the US. DirkvdM 06:15, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you're almost right. But you're forgetting the fact that local government in the US have more power then in your own country. In the US, local governments (states for example but also counties) can decide on all such these things like abortion and gay marriage. In states like Alabama and Louisiana there Republican party's in control who almost share the same values as the SGP. In fact they're even more conservative in economic issues. Ok the're is freedom of religion in Alabama but who says that the SGP opposes that. Now I don't want to hold you up so let's say that we call it a day. Wiki213ip 10:00, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

The SGP will never explicitly say that they oppose the freedom of religion, because that could bring them in very serious legal problems. However, the SGP does more or less suggest that they do oppose religious freedom in their so called "Program van beginselen" (rude translation: "basic statements"). Source: http://www.sgp.nl/Media/download/501/BEGINSEL.PRO.pdf (in Dutch). The last sentence of article 4 states: "Dientengevolge behoren ongeloofspropaganda, valse religies en anti-christelijke ideologieën door de overheid uit het openbare leven te worden geweerd." Objective translation in English could be: "Therefore, non-believers propaganda, false (/wrong/fake) religions and anti-christianity ideologies should be kept out of public life (society) by the government."

Constitutional Presbyterian

"Constitutional Presbyterian Party" is an interesting translation of "Staatskundig Gereformeerde Partij". I've removed not because it is wrong, but I hoped that some could provide a source for it. The party it self prefers Reformed Political Party (see [1]). I personally prefer "Political Reformed Party", because it sounds less weird. This by the way should constitute a proposal to move the article. But if anyone can convince I'm open for the presbyterian option.C mon 20:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I have renamed the article to "Reformed Political Party" because that is the name used by the party itself and because "political reformed party" is not entirely correct: "staatkundig" is an adverb, so the literal translation would be "politically reformed". This, of course, is also an option, but I considered it sensible to use the name under which the party prefers to be known in English. Sixtus 18:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be linguistically incorrect to call them "Politically Reformed Party", as this implies that the "reformed" refers to "politically", which it doesn't. Dutch 'gereformeerd' translates to 'Presbyterian' in English (a protestant sub-group which is fundamentalist Calvinist in nature). It would not be incorrect to call them "Presbyterian Constitutional Party" or "Constitutional Presbyterian Party" (the former seems better to me), but only in explaining the name within the article, definitely not as a title itself. 82.176.211.33 21:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The term staatkundig would refer to the Statenvertaling, as it is this version of the bible, issued by ye States General of the Netherlands, the party fully supports. The name should be Something Reformed Party or Something Presbyterian Party, the addition of "Political" to the name surprises me and seems to be a complete invention of the person who renamed this page to Reformed Political Party, probably to keep the number of words at 3. Cycn (talk) 13:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Table

I reinsert table and redirect the List of Reformed Political Party representations, there is a common style for Dutch political parties (see f.i. GreenLeft, PvdA) which I would prefer to keep. I realize the table is huge, but if it would change, it should be enacted for all Dutch parties. C mon (talk) 12:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Please point me to the Wikipedia policy where it reads that it should be enacted for all Dutch parties. User:Krator (t c) 13:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no policy, only your aesthetic preferences and my commitment to consistent representation of information. I think that since this is an encyclopedia and not a work of art consistent representation of information has priority over subjective views of what is ugly. C mon (talk) 13:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no policy nor guideline on consistent representation of information. Do what is best in each situation is the Wikipedia policy, which is, in my opinion, no table here, as no one would read it anyway. In editing the table rather than removing it, I have conceded that there should be a table. 100 rows of 100% font is simply too large, though, so I removed that. User:Krator (t c) 13:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I have listed this dispute at Wikipedia:Third opinion so that we can solve this quickly. User:Krator (t c) 13:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
We have conflicting opinion on what is best then. I would prefer

1. to keep all information in one place and not move vital information to another page
2. to keep the layout of all Dutch party articles consistent

The reason is that this is vital information on the SGP and it allows users interested in this kind of information to find it more easily than when it is hidden in some subarticle. I think the best course of action is to do the following: a wikiproject Dutch politics will be formed soon. When it is formed let's discuss the issue of the tables there so we can make decisions with more than two editors about all the tables. C mon (talk) 13:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Why do you oppose a table as it is here? User:Krator (t c) 13:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Two reasons: 1) it is in consistent with the other tables, 2) I think that it is particularly aesthetic: two tables is very chaotic, moreover because the columns are less wide, the whole becomes very forced/"terse" and finally they are no longer of all of the same height, because some now take two lines, on the whole it just looks worse. C mon (talk) 14:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Rather than listing the two different versions on the 3O page, I'm listing them here: Version A and Version B. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 18:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Found the page via the Wikipedia:Third_opinion page - so here's my third opinion. The two parted table looks fine on my computer, and is more aesthetically pleasing to me. I'd say keep it. In my mind, it's better to make individual pages look better than make lots of pages all look bad together. Over time, perhaps the table can be adjusted across all the political parties' pages, but for the moment, it looks better in two columns to me. Annihilatenow (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Upper house/lower house

By the way, the Senate is the upper house. Read both articles for confirmation. User:Krator (t c) 13:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

More Table

Please consider these issues as separate issues. The "consistency" argument has been dealt with above, so let us consider decisions on their individual merit. As some of my arguments had been disregarded above, perhaps as an honest mistake or because they were overlooked, I present a more structured approach below.

Exclusion of lijsttrekker information

1. Redundant with fractievoorzitter.
2. There is now a note in place to explain this.
3. Therefore unnecessary, and decreases the value of the table for the reader.

Year 1961 instead of 1963.

1. The smaller size of the world war two years make an even distribution not workable because those rows are slightly smaller.
2. I choose 1961 because it happened to fit well, but if 1963 presents a better technical solution I am more than willing to change my opinion.
3. Choosing the exact mathematical middle is not a good reason.

User:Krator (t c) 22:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Merger

I am proposing that SGPJ be merged with Reformed Political Party. The SGPJ article is not notable enough to warrant its own article, but it has some information that should probably be included here. Inks.LWC (talk) 00:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, the article gives specific information about this (officially independent) youth wing and the other Dutch youth wings have articles of their own too. Wikix (talk) 10:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

SGP far-right?

Why is the SGP far-right?81.58.144.30 (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)``

It would be in the way that certain orthordox jewish parties in Israel are far-right. It's a conservative party, but that wouldn't necessarily make it far-right. Cycn (talk) 13:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Theocracy should be removed

I have removed the theocracy part, as the cited sources do not indicate that "theocracy" is what the SGP wants to achieve. The SGP's stated goals on their website do not hint at a theocracy at all. Cyberpunkas (talk) 17:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

See WP:SECONDARY. "Theocratic party" is right there in the first of the cited sources, and a discussion of the party's theocratic ideals (as expressed in its party platform) occurs in Dölle 2005. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)