Talk:Reformed Political Party/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

SGP opposed female suffrage which is clearly a far-right position.

Opposition to female suffrage (which is no longer a key issue in the party) is not a good enough reason to consider them far right under the definitions of the position. Whilst extremely conservative and traditional, they are definetely right wing but far right is not appropriate in describing their position - most sources on the SGP describe them as being extremely conservative which implies a right wing position which is most appropriate in this case. Greenleader(2) (talk) 21:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Norberto Bobbio's definition of the political Right and Left is based on the contradiction between the supporters of equality and the upholders of hierarchy and other forms of inequality. Placement on left-right spectrum depends on the historical context. And far-right is not necessarily radical right: it may well include extreme forms of the conservative right. Under this definition, parties that opposed universal and female suffrage at the time when the latter is established for around a century, is without doubt on the extreme right of the political spectrum. The cited paper that placed the SGP on the extreme right in published in the European Journal of Political Research European Journal of Political Research, which make it definitely a authoritative source. Moreover, description of the SGP as an extreme right party should be less controversial than description as such of the Party for Freedom which often used left-wing arguments to oppose the Islam and Muslims. Ritter Hildebrandt (talk • contribs) 12:13, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

The source provided does not make explicit links between the SGP and far right politics. It is also fundamentally misleading to try and label them far right; right wing is already adequate in describing relatively extreme conservative and traditional viewpoints, with centre right describing relatively moderate conservative politics. Far right has never been used to describe the SGP in newspaper articles, reports etc. Additionally, they have formed a close relationship with the christenunie, a centrist party as well as almost forming coalitions with other parties such as the CDA and running councils; a trait not found in most dutch far right parties. Neither are they categorised as far right and haven't been ever until the edit concerned was brought up. AGF - however you've repeatedly added it back without the credibility it requires. Greenleader(2) (talk) 17:13, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

>"The source provided does not make explicit links between the SGP and far right politics."

Already in the abstract the source asserts: "Historically, three varieties [of the Extreme Right in the Netherlands] can be distinguished: theocratic Protestantism (‘Very Old Right’)(...)". On the page 36 under the title "The broken tradition of the Dutch Extreme Right: a historical survey" the following is written: "Orthodox Protestants who did not accept it but continued to strive for ‘organic suffrage’ (restricting the right to vote to family heads) and a theocratic regime, founded the Political Reformed Party (Sfaurkundig Gereformeerde Partij) in 1918 (...)". And, on the page 51, the authors asserts: "When discussing its prospects for the future, we must distinguish between the three varieties of right-wing extremism that exist in the Netherlands at present: 1. Very Old Right theocratic Protestantism, still reluctant to accept a secular political culture and liberal democracy; represented by the Political Reformed Party (Stuutkundig Gereformeerde Purtij) and more specifically by its right-wing, the National Foundation for the Preservation of Political Reformed Principles." All bolds are mine.

So, as it can be seen, the source DOES make explicit claims that SGP is the part of Dutch Extreme Right.

>"Far right has never been used to describe the SGP in newspaper articles, reports etc."

Journalists who white newspaper articles have (in contrast to the authors of the paper cited by me) limited knowledge of political philosophy and political history. So these articles are less authoritative sources than this paper. --Ritter Hildebrandt (talk) 23:56, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Reports like this distinguish which Dutch parties are far right (SGP is not considered far right): http://digitalassets.lib.berkeley.edu/etd/ucb/text/Twist_berkeley_0028E_15225.pdf Greenleader(2) (talk) 17:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Author of the report gave very dubious, flawed, and confused definition of "far-right" by considering the term as synonymous with "anti-immigration", and claiming that the "members of the far-right family take varying positions on economic (...) as well as social issues (such as samesex marriage)" as if economic and social issues were not of much relevance for political positioning and the "far-right" parties may even take left-wing position on the them. But the opposition to immigration of people of other cultures and religions is only one possible form of anti-egalitarianism (i. e. rightism by Bobbio's definition). And I do not see any reason to suggest that opposition to female suffrage is less "extreme" example of anti-egalitarianism than opposition to the immigration of Muslims.

And there is another source suggesting extreme right position of SGP: "On the basis of Figure 2, a hypothetical individual whose ideological position moves from the far left to the moderate left will be more likely to vote for D66 and less likely to vote for one of the Small Left parties. If this individual moves further toward the center, then his or her likelihood of voting for the Christian Democrats will increase at the expense of Labor. Movement from the center to the moderate right will continue to increase his or her likelihood of voting for the Christian Democrats and the Liberals, while decreasing the individual's likelihood of supporting Labor and D66. Finally, if he or she moves from the moderate right to the far right, the individual's probability of voting for one of the Orthodox Religious Right parties will increase at the expense of the Christian Democrats." -- "Heightening Comparativists' Concern for Model Choice: Voting Behavior in Great Britain and the Netherlands" by Guy D. Whitten and Harvey D. Palmer (http://www.jstor.org/stable/2111701) --Ritter Hildebrandt (talk) 23:56, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I suggest that in order to resolve this, the "to far right" is removed and the "Right wing" is kept; this should sufficiently show their position in a clear manner that is well supported by evidence and citations as well as avoiding potential confusion. Greenleader(2) (talk) 17:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

By the definition of the paper's study of moderate right to far right, that would surely imply a centre right position! D66 are not far left either...Voting behaviour additionally does not always represent the parties' position (displayed in almost catch all type parties such as the CDU in Germany). Also the paper you provide is talking about the historical Protestant right; the current SGP despite being very traditional and conservative are very different to how they were 100 years ago. To use just one source which still does not make the explicit link is misleading - the reason why there is no material on the matter (I have tried to find papers on the subject) is that the SGP are not far right in terms of their position. They hold questionable biblical principles but this simply does not equate to what is considered far right politics. In the current form of the party, they shouldn't be considered far right. Greenleader(2) (talk) 07:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

The cited source do not claim that D66 is "far-left": its voters, according to the source, lean to the "moderate left" which is consistent with center-left, social liberal position of the party. SGP is certainly is not a catch-all party.

Paper cited by me also talk about the varieties of "right-wing extremism that exist in the Netherlands at present" and considered SGP to be representative of one of them. And the paper in European Journal of Political Research is not only source that explicitly claims that SGP is far-right: "Uiterst rechts is permanent (dus niet incidenteel zoals in het Noorden) met hoogste cijfers voor Nederland aanwezig. De voornaamste groepering is hier de Staatkundig Gereformeerde Partij, doch tevens treden er nog enkele andere (...)" -- Verslagen van landbouwkundige onderzoekingen, Issues 673-675, 1965 --Ritter Hildebrandt (talk) 15:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

(I am initially referring to the Jstor paper you have provided and later am referring to the citation used) Greenleader(2) (talk) 07:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

In terms of the (cited) source's description, it would appear that there are two issues broken up; the old theocratic right is one right wing voting group , however when describing the reformed political party, it is never described as far right, only as having "right wing principles", therefore suggesting it is right wing, but in no way far right. Greenleader(2) (talk) 07:55, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Ritter, you refer to the historical nature of the party being right wing and extreme; surely then this is completely irrelevant to the current state of the party - and to discard media perception of the party as being something "less authoritative" is not valid; professionals and academics often disagree! Please try working towards consensus on the matter! Greenleader(2) (talk) 11:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Also in your opposition to the source I provided, you used your opinion to discard it. Wikipedia is about providing factual reasons to support a claim; there is simply no consensus on the far right claim. Very few sources associate the SGP with the far right; to resort to a paper from 1965 as well does not support the current position of the party either. Greenleader(2) (talk) 11:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

If there is no consensus then it would be proper to present both positions. If anything changed since 1965 then SGP become even farther to right from other parties as the latter moved to the left as the result of the cultural revolution of 1960s and 1970s, depillarization and other events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ritter Hildebrandt (talk • contribs) 16:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I propose that right wing is kept; economically, the party is centre right whilst socially they are right wing. Therefore I agree with you that right wing should be kept up there but the implication they are far right gives undue weight to a position which they simply don't seem to represent! Greenleader(2) (talk) 17:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Ritter, the SGP are not at all similar to the FPO or National front; the sgp do not have a base of supporters that include actual far right political members such as neo nazis or chauvinistic nationalists. Socially, the party are not completely opposed to the EU or immigration either. They have traditional biblical principles, but this does not equate to the xenephobia, chauvinism, or racism that is defined in far right politics on the wiki page about the subject. Therefore it is appropriate to label them right wing (which portrays a more extreme conservatism as opposed to centre right which is moderate). Greenleader(2) (talk) 09:57, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

SGP held positions which may well be considered by people with left-wing views as "sexist". "Xenephobia, chauvinism, or racism" are examples of anti-egalitarianism so is the opposition to gender equality. Although there is significant differences between SGP and FPO or National Front, all these parties are anti-egalitarian in one or another major aspect.--Ritter Hildebrandt (talk) 05:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Ritter, the SGP do not display any traits of a far right party, hence why there are practically no articles or sources suggesting that position. I agree the edit war needs to end, and so propose that the the status quo is retained; this is something that already had consensus prior to the editing and appropriately shows that they are right wing conservatives but in not what is categorised as "far right". I appreciate your contributions and encourage you to edit more on this platform which requires volunteers to ensure that there is clear, concise, and most importantly truthful content being created and shared! Greenleader(2) (talk) 14:48, 12 June 2018 (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)

See WP:Neutral point of view. The source cited was using it as a critique, not actually saying that is part of the party's platform. Putting it as the party's platform after its opponents use the label "theocracy" to attack its platform is not accurate fact-keeping. Cyberpunkas (talk) 01:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

See WP:SECONDARY as suggested by Qwertyus (also: see WP:THIRDPARTY). We categorise political parties by using third-party sources, not how the political parties themselves wish to be seen and categorised.--Autospark (talk) 14:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Here's a quote from Dölle, p. 104, in my translation:

The [party manifesto's] first article reads: 'The SGP strives toward a government of our people wholly based on the order of God, as revealed in Holy Scripture, and therefore supports enforcement of the unabridged article 36 of the Belgic Confession.' This position, commonly dubbed 'theocratic', is also apparent in the article 3 of the manifesto. 'The government, being the servant of God, is in its duty submitted unconditionally to the Word and Law of God, according to which it shall be judged. [...]'

I.e., this is simply the common one-word summary of the main point of the SGP's platform. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 20:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

See WP:Core content policies You are not accurately representing their views. That is not a theocracy. A theocracy is rule by the church. I can read that translation too, it is an attack on the party. Your sources do not back up the statement that the SGP wants the church to rule government. They want Biblical principles but not the church to rule government. Theocracy is inaccurate, because the SGP is not saying that the Church should rule government. They are saying government should enact principles based on the Bible. That is not a theocracy, that is a moral statement. Cyberpunkas (talk) 13:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

See https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staatkundig_Gereformeerde_Partij. The Dutch version does not have theocracy. The English version should not have theocracy because the addition of "theocracy" does not conform to Wikipedia's standards of accuracy WP:Core content policies Wikipedia:Neutrality_of_sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberpunkas (talk • contribs) 13:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

The content of other language wikis has no bearing on en.wiki. Also, please explain why the description as theocratic is not neutral.--Autospark (talk) 22:34, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it has it, see nl:Staatkundig Gereformeerde Partij#Theocratie. It does say, however, that SGP chose to downplay the word "theocracy", without actually changing its ideas. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

SGP believes that the government should apply the Law of God. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:08, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

So, the distinction between Law of God being applied by clergy only or by a government which includes laymen is moot. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

The claim that SGP is a theocracy should be proven first before being added. Argument from Ignorance and WP: V. Also Wikipedia:Neutrality_of_sources. I have removed it until it can be proven that SGP wants a theocracy. Wanting the "Law of God" to govern the Netherlands is not the same as wanting a theocracy, the rule of the church. The distinction is not moot. "Law of God" just means a set of policies, not a system of government called theocracy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.172.33.82 (talk • contribs)

I've added a footnote to reflect the lack of unanimity in political science about this labeling. To the best of my knowledge, the article now reflects the consensus in that field quite accurately. (As always, the Dutch wiki has sourcing issues...) QVVERTYVS (hm?) 18:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately it's sunday today, so the SGP site is closed, but I remembered that somewhere in their explanation of their views they say that they are not a theocracy. However, I see this the same way as I see the word "Democratic" in Democratic People's Republic of Korea. A lie. Zt-freak (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

SGP is for democracy and theocracy. Best of both worlds. Tgeorgescu (talk)

this confirms that the SGP is a theocracy Zt-freak (talk) 09:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I believe that primary sources should not be used. And as the above editor says, the SGP itself clarifies that they are not a theocracy in the traditional sense. They use the word "theocracy" to try to explain what exactly they stand for, which is not a theocracy according to them. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.172.33.82 (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Reformed Political Party. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080406130341/http://kreeft.zeeland.nl/zeesterdoc/ZBI-O/ZEE/ZEE0/7009/700993_1.pdf to http://kreeft.zeeland.nl/zeesterdoc/ZBI-O/ZEE/ZEE0/7009/700993_1.pdf

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) 05:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Article title

I can't see why anyone would translate Staatkundig Gereformeerde Partij as Reformed Political Party. Are there reliable sources to confirm this translation? Marcocapelle (talk) 08:41, 23 December 2018 (UTC)