Talk:Bij1

Party name change

Due to a lawsuit, the party has changed its name to BIJ1 (from "bij een" = together). Source: https://www.telegraaf.nl/nieuws/1369253/partij-sylvana-simons-omgedoopt-tot-bij1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matroesjka (talk • contribs) 15:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

The information on this page is outdated. The party has taken up a new name, BIJ1, among others. Levuspelus (talk) 18:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I need some help changing this page's name, and consequently its url. How do I go about that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Levuspelus (talk • contribs) 19:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

user:Levuspelus, if this is true and the party has changed its name please explain this in the article, while also adding a supporting citation from a reliable source. Once this is done to change the name of the page simply hover over the "more" button (next to the Wikipedia search box in the top right corner of the page) and select "move". Then add the new name and the reason for why you are changing it. The url will change automatically. Helper201 (talk) 19:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Party name and ideology

My changes on writing Bij1 as BIJ1 are reversed. So are my changes about changing the ideology of social democracy into anticapitalism. Why is that?

1. BIJ1 is written in capitals in the statutes of the organisation and the party always writes their party name in capitals.

2. Secondly, party leader Sylvana Simons declared in multiple interviews that the party is not socialdemocratic but anticapitalist. She even declared this at a youth event for the young members of the socialdemocratic Partij van de Arbeid (Workers Party).

Reversing my comments would be incorrect. EmilyJ77 (talk) 23:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Futhermore, BIJ1 is a feminist party. Why is that deleted? Ones own political opinions should not termine the outcome of what information we edit on this page. EmilyJ77 (talk) 23:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

You've been removing sourced information and swapping it with unsourced information, you cant do that! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 00:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Can't we put the sources together? Clearly, BIJ1 is an anticapitalist party, is written in capitals. All the information I supplied was sourced. EmilyJ77 (talk) 16:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I have added some sources. Here is a source about why BIJ1 should be written in capitals: The Kamer van Koophandel is the Dutch national register for companies and associations. Also the Kiesraad, the institute that registersall Dutch political parties writes BIJ1 in capitals , which clearly shows that BIJ1 is written in capitals. EmilyJ77 (talk) 17:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Marxist ideology?

Regarding this edit, I have read WP:Secondary and I agree that both VPRO and VN are secondary sources. I also agree that we should seek verifiability, not truth.

The VPRO-source only mentions some general facts about marxism, nothing specific and nothing at all about BIJ1. Sadly I cannot read the whole of the VN-source without a subscription, which is why I will not revert the edit. With regard to the VN-source, I will, however, point to this guideline: WP:RSOPINION, which in my opinion prohibits listing this opinion piece as a source for the BIJ1-ideology.

But my point is that even if we do find one reliable source that describes the party ideology as marxist, that would be too thin to conclude that it is so. At best we could conclude that these sources say it is so. The majority of reliable sources do not say that BIJ1 is marxist, and I do not think it should be categorised as such. Mark in wiki (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I will add an archive link to the VN ref, so everybody (that understands Dutch) can read it. With regards to the content:

• The VN piece is a column, but that does not mean it is entirely opinion. The writer qualifies certain stances as pertaining to an ideology. He represents his own opinion in an unrelated matter.
• The VPRO piece qualifies the entry of BIJ1 as part of a socialist surge.
• Most other ideologies listed are also covered by one ref, with one having no ref at all.
• The other refs for the infobox ideology section are far less reliable. (For example, OneWorld is an extremely biased source.) Some refs are not even articles but interviews.
• What you and I think is not important. Leontrooper (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Notification of discussion involving this article

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/Political parties regarding the inclusion of the party flag in the infobox of this article. The thread is Party flags in infoboxes. Thank you. — Ætoms ^[talk] 23:46, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Far-left

@GlowstoneUnknown, you have removed the label "far-left" with the summary "original research". However, the last two sources call the party radical-left or left-radical (there is no good translation of far-left to Dutch I believe). This is also used in more sources (here). So could you clarify what you meant with "original research"? Dajasj (talk) 09:01, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I considered all those sources to contain original research because "radical left" and "left-radical" aren't synonymous with "far-left". There are more accurate translations of the phrase "far-left" into Dutch with the terms "extreemlinks" and "links-extremisme". Since the convention with enwiki is that "radical left" in sources from other languages (such as French) doesn't correspond neatly to either "left-wing" or "far-left" as a label, I'd say it's a wash. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 09:12, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

This is Dutch politics not French, in Dutch we using radical left for the left and radical right for the right. Ofcourse if this was a French party it was original research. Shadow4dark (talk) 09:27, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Extreemlinks is not the correct translation either. Specifically for the far-right, Dutch political scientists consider this to include both the extreme and radical right. I would say that applies for the left as well.

But perhaps the best solution is to call them left to radical left then, which reflects the sources literally. Dajasj (talk) 10:40, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

While I'd personally not oppose that, I'd like to note that it's not a conventional layout for the infobox. Would it be a suitable compromise to put the "radical left" label into the body and lead (with those sources to back it up of course)? – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 10:46, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Although I don't see any conflicts with the layout for the infobox, I also don't oppose it as a compromise. Dajasj (talk) 11:54, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

In that case, I'm more than happy to reinstate the sources and add explicit mentions of the "radical left" label in the article's body and lead. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 12:05, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I've never seen the term "radical left" or "radical right" be used in infoboxes, and it would seem to be very inconsistent. Also, saying radical left = far-left would be WP:SYNTH. Helper201 (talk) 04:59, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Completely agreed, very well-explained, thank you. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 05:16, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

But why is the new source removed? I don't have access to it, but it appears to claim Bij1 is far-left. That would solve the issue. Dajasj (talk) 08:04, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Whoops, my mistake, I misread the edit. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 08:06, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Why is everything being removed again after we reached consensus here? Do I need to provide more sources for radical left? Dajasj (talk) 10:37, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Far from "everything" was removed. I outlined the reasons why I removed what I did, as they clearly violated Wikipedia guidelines. This topic is about far-left, not any of the other stuff I removed and far-left has been kept. The only reason I kept it is because it’s by an academic source, but it is still highly debatable as to whether we should keep this, again because its only supported by a single source. Also, there is no consensus. Helper201 (talk) 10:53, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd like to investigate the quality of that source at some point, to see if it holds any special merit apart from its status as "academic" vs "journalistic". – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 10:58, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

2025 general election

please don't add the votes yet, there are still votes to be counted, see: https://app.nos.nl/nieuws/tk2025/uitslag/briefstemmers-buitenland/. But the best thing is to wait for the votes to be final (8 November the House will decide if a recount is necessary) Dajasj (talk) 08:00, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Explain the name?

Would it make sense to try and explain the double meaning of the name? It doesn't translate well outside of Dutch but the following (I am certain intentional) meanings are self-evident to a native dutch speaker.

Bijeen, archaic way of saying together. I.e. Wij komen bijeen om x uur, we gather together at x o'clock.

At One, possibly referring to a desired "nr one" position, but almost definetly referring to Article One of the dutch constitution, given the previous names.

Denk has the name explained, but mentioning the meaning of the word in 2 languages might be less akward and unwieldy then explaining a pun in a different language. At the same time it would seem to me that understanding this name is pretty helpfull, if not outright needed to have a fundamental understanding of the party. MopperMijmer (talk) 15:35, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I think it would be helpful. You could place it under its own section simply called "Name". What you add would need to be cited though. Helper201 (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

There is already Bij1#Name_change, which addresses this already partially (without a source) Dajasj (talk) 21:04, 17 December 2025 (UTC)