Talk:Belgium

Guidelines for editing the Belgium page

• Text is to be written in British English, in which respect Oxford English spelling is used for this article.
• Units in metric should be spelled out with the converted English units abbreviated in parentheses per Manual of Style.
• Only external links pertaining to Belgium as a whole, or official government of Belgium links are solicited on this page. Please add other links in their respective articles.
• All sections are a summary of more detailed articles. If you find any points missing, please add it in the section's main article rather than on this page to keep this page size within reasonable limits.

ARCHIVES : 2005 2006 2007

Candidates for Monarchy

I wonder if my belief that Daniel O'Connell of Ireland, the Catholic Emancipator, was a candidate, along with Leopold, for king, is true? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 166.68.134.175 (talk) 16:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

No, the first choice to become King of the Belgians was the Duke of Nemours, a son of King Louis-Phillipe of France. But under international pressure he had to decline. -- fdewaele, 8 February 2007, 19:20.

Location maps available for infoboxes of European countries

On the WikiProject Countries talk page, the section Location Maps for European countries had shown new maps created by David Liuzzo, that are available for the countries of the European continent, and for countries of the European Union exist in two versions. From November 16, 2006 till January 31, 2007, a poll had tried to find a consensus for usage of 'old' or of which and where 'new' version maps. Please note that since January 1, 2007 all new maps became updated by David Liuzzo (including a world locator, enlarged cut-out for small countries) and as of February 4, 2007 the restricted licence that had jeopardized their availability on Wikimedia Commons, became more free. At its closing, 25 people had spoken in favor of either of the two presented usages of new versions but neither version had reached a consensus (12 and 13), and 18 had preferred old maps.
As this outcome cannot justify reverting of new maps that had become used for some countries, seconds before February 5, 2007 a survey started that will be closed soon at February 20, 2007 23:59:59. It should establish two things:

• whether the new style maps may be applied as soon as some might become available for countries outside the European continent (or such to depend on future discussions),
• which new version (with of without indicating the entire European Union by a separate shade) should be applied for which countries.

Please read the discussion (also in other sections α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, η, θ) and in particular the arguments offered by the forementioned poll, while realizing some comments to have been made prior to updating the maps, and all prior to modifying the licences, before carefully reading the presentation of the currently open survey. You are invited to only then finally make up your mind and vote for only one option.
There mustnot be 'oppose' votes; if none of the options would be appreciated, you could vote for the option you might with some effort find least difficult to live with - rather like elections only allowing to vote for one of several candidates. Obviously, you are most welcome to leave a brief argumentation with your vote. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 19 Feb2007 00:42 (UTC)

Category:Germanic culture

Belgium has been add to the new Category:Germanic culture by an editor. Please discuss this to ascertain whether this is appropriate or not - and act accordingly.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 13:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

A majority of Belgians speak Dutch (mainly in the Northern part of the country, i.e. Flanders), which is a German Language. Furthermore, in East Belgium, near of the German border, you will find the German-speaking Community of Belgium, which covers a territory where the main language is German (or German dialects). This representents about 70,000 German-speaking Belgians. In historic times, one of the main components of what is today Belgium was the Bishopric of Liège which belonged to the Holy Roman Empire although most of its territory was occupied by people who spoke Walloon or French. I think this should be enough to ascertain some links between Belgium and the Germanic culture. Finally, Belgium is actually at the crossroads of the Germanic and Roman worlds. --Lebob-BE 14:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Besides in category 'Germanic Europe', Belgium is also in the categories 'Latin Europe and 'La Francophonie', a modern cultural movement linked to the French-language, and in the category 'Nederlandse Taalunie', which has no cultural aspirations other than the language itself. — SomeHuman 19 Feb2007 16:10-16:26 (UTC)

German legend to locator map

The legend now in the caption of the locator map is primarily German (with an English translation). Do you think guys think that is acceptable for your country on English Wiki? Arnoutf 21:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I just found out that the same also applies to France. Apparently these maps have been created in German and need a translation in the local official language(s) with an English translation or, alternatively, need to be written in English only (which would probably be preferable as far Belgium is concerned, since there are 3 official languages in Belgium). --Lebob-BE 22:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The Liuzzo maps have no language at all; the single 'legend' image that serves all maps was created by the same David Liuzzo who mainly works at the German-language Wikipedia. Neither the maps nor the bilingual German & English legend are on the English Wikipedia, they're at the international Wikimedia Commons. The legend had been presented at the WikiProject Countries where the maps were extremely thoroughly discussed, but no-one paid attention to the legend... Someone created a map caption text on nearly all the articles (at least the EU members) and properly linked to the bilingual legend. Meanwhile I rephrased the caption text and simply maintained the link to the legend. The best thing to do is to create a similar legend image and upload it to Commons by a different name, and then we simply change the name underneath the link in the articles. I'm afraid I'm not well equipped for graphical output and it would take me too long a time, but I'll be glad to change the links if one notifies me on my talk page that a better legend is uploaded (don't forget to license it so as to be acceptable). Please refrain from putting a comment about this in every article, it should be solved quickly without controversy for all articles as it requires only one image. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 24 Feb2007 00:35 (UTC)

Follow-up: It turns out that the English-language legend could easily enough be produced with my limited equipment. It's in use since several weeks. — SomeHuman 20 Mar2007 05:26 (UTC)

Obsolete coat of arms in the infobox

The infobox shows the obsolete coat of arms of Belgium decorated with the arms of the 9 (nine) Belgian provinces, the middle one on top being that of the Province of Brabant which ceased to exist on December 31, 1994. The picture being obsolete is not surprising: it's copyright notice mentions its author to be deceased more than 70 years ago... This needs quickly to be replaced with a version showing the 10 provinces (including Walloon Brabant and Flemish Brabant) if such exists (as the capital region is not part of a province) or no province —or no image— at all. — SomeHuman 20 Mar2007 05:21 (UTC)

Actually, that still is the coat of arms of Belgium... although the province of Brabant was indeed split in two in 1994, forming the provinces of Flemish Brabant and Walloon Brabant, the coat of arms was never adapted to the fact that Belgium now has 10 provinces in stead of nine... thus the pre 10 provinces coat is still the official coat of arms of Belgium. -- fdewaele, 27 March 2007, 14:10.

Redundant and misleading information

English speaking people who want to know the French or German names of a Flemish town or the Dutch name of a Walloon one should simply use a dictionary!

And please note that Dutch, French and German are not official languages in Belgium, as foreigners tend to think, but each is the sole official language in its own state, with only tine Brussels (161 km²) bilingual. So there is no difference with the UK and Italy: Portuguese is not an official language in the UK and French is not an official language in most of Belgium! Antwerp is not called Anvers, and Namur is not called Namen, anymore than Paris is called Parigi and London Londres.

People should stop thinking in terms of "official languages of Belgium" as there is an official language in, say, Spain. The situation is completely different. Derek Christopher Manderfeld

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.198.160.158 (talk) 12:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

As far I know, this article is about Belgium and, unless I would have missed some recent changes, French and Dutch are still official languages in Belgium (and German as well, by the way). So, I really don't see why this makes a problem to give both names. There is a big difference with the examples you have provided: Portuguese is not an official language in the United Kingdom not Italian in France. It might well interess a English speaking reader to know how Antwerp is called in French and how Liège is called in Dutch and German (maybe I should add the German translation as well, when there is one available).--Lebob-BE 14:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that most articles on Flemish municipalities do state that the French name is not an official name any more (although until very recently they were, and if I recall correctly there's still one municipality in Flanders with a French-speaking majority that ignores the fact that the French translation is no longer official). I don't know about the Walloon Region, but I think that the Dutch names there are still official (meaning there's an official list of translations) although they're probably only used in the municipalities with linguistic facilities, if they're used at all. And the municipalities of the German-speaking Community have two equally-valid names if I'm not mistaken.

There is also the fact that members of all three linguistic communities refer to certain municipalities with another name than the official one. For instance, most Francophones will refer to Leuven as Louvain, and most Dutch-speaking and German-speaking persons will refer to Liège as, respectively, Luik and Lüttich. I believe that those names should be included as they are used by a large part of the Belgian population and because they're in one of Belgium's official languages.--Ganchelkas 16:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this is the English Wikipedia and that therefore all the city names should be written in English only. It happened by the way that English names are closer to the French ones but there are exceptions like Ghent or Brussels for example. 09:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC) Vb

I agree with Vb on this matter: if every occurance of Antwerp should mention that name in four languages (English and 3 official languages of Belgium)... Even the here relevant English and Dutch would make sentences unreadable when naming four or five cities separated with commas. The names in English are linked to their article, that's where one finds the relevant alternatives. Only in a context where the name in a particular language for instance helps to understand a derived name of some institution, one could have an exception. — SomeHuman 25 May2007 08:27 (UTC)

A Misleading Article

Obviously, this website [1] should be taken into account.

Redundant information and incorrect (or unnecessary) translations

The great majority of Wikipedia entries on Belgian cities, provinces, rivers etc suffer from two great ills.

• Redundant information: most irritatingly, some busybodies like to add the French, German, Spanish or even Italian names of Belgian places, just because those names exist.

This is against normal Wikipedia standards. The English Wikipedia entries on London and Paris should not mention the French name for London and the Italian name for Paris. To an Englishman seeking information about the city, this is not relevant. In articles on Belgian places, it can even be downright misinforming: adding the French name for Gent or the Dutch name for Namur could lead people to think that both places are bilingual. Or that German is an official language there.

Only the 19 boroughs of Brussels (and every street, museum or church within them) are bilingual and should therefore always be referred to by both names. Ironically, precisely those places are now always referred to only in French!

• Hypertranslations: that is, translating what cannot and/or should not be translated. In many articles on Flemish cities, for instance, the name 'Grote Markt' is translated as 'central market square' or something similar. It would be very good to add that description, but people will really need the Dutch name 'Grote Markt' to find that precise place in towns like Sint-Niklaas. Sometimes the term "Grand'Place" is used for that Flemish town! Imagine a poor American looking for information on the Grand'Place in Sint-Niklaas, or even Saint-Nicholas.

More disturbing is the English translations of Flemish (and Dutch) provinces: Americans have heard of Flanders, but not of Oost-Vlaanderen and Vlaams-Brabant. As a consequence, there is no English name for them, and that is wonderful: no need to change names, no problems of confusion. Alas, contributors to Wikipedia have decided to make up their own translations and force-feed them on the British and Americans: "Flemish Brabant" (though not "Walloon Brabant", amazingly), East Flanders and South Holland!

This only adds up to confusion, as it makes it necessary to explain that East Flanders is located in the western half of Flanders, and South Holland is in the middle of the Netherlands! To use the real names only would avoid such confusion.

Both the redundant information and the hypertranslations were blatantly against Wikipedia standards last time I checked.

Derek Christopher Manderfeld 84.198.160.158 08:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

What is also against Wikipedia standards is to change what you have written on a discussion page after an answer had been given to what you had written first. Please answer the point instead. Moreover, this page is over Belgium, not Belgian cities. The last time I checked, Belgium was still a country with 3 official languages. Otherwise, please explain why any law published in the official gazette (Belgisch Staatsblad - Moniteur Belge) need to be published in the 3 languages (although one could discuss for the German language since it doesn't happen much in pratice. If you think that changes need to happen on the Flemish cities, please proceed. And please register as a Wikipedia contributor first. --Lebob-BE 10:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Demographics of Brussels

I dispute the edits of the anon editor and reverted them. (He reverted mine earlier on) First of all, there are no reliable numbers about language groups, simply because there is not an official count. Depending on the method used: surveys, language school attendance, voting behaviour, whether ot not one includes fluent speakers or basic knowledge, whether or not to include bilingual (when is one bilingual?), etc. different results are achieved one gets different results. The lowest estimate is that about 30-35% of the population of Brussels speaks natively/fluently French (according to this view: due to the recent influx of immigrants (56.5% of the population is of foreign origin), most people in Brussel do not natively speak the language and lack fluency), the highest 95%. According to the highest estimate 20% of the Brussels population speaks Dutch, according to the lowest less than 5%. I think that following one view, especially in the lead, is OR (synthesis of information to support a position) and POV. Furthermore, no reliable studies (if any exist, considering the ebove mentioned difficulties) were cited, which violates WP:V (not WP:CITE, my apoligy for the wrong mentioned guideline in the edit history commentary). Therefore I think we should stick to the facts: (1) there are considerable more French speakers in Brussels than Dutch speakers, and (2) due to the immigration, both languages become relatively less spoken. Sijo Ripa 13:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with your point of view. However making of Brussels a multiethnic city is also POV. I must be clearly stated that the current language in Brussels is neither Dutch nor English but French. 81.209.227.178 09:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • (1) Brussels is a multi-ethnic city. First of all, there are the francophone citizens (of Belgian origin) and Flemings. Secondly, there are people from a foreign origin (Morocco, Turkey, Congo, ...). These groups all have a different ethnicity. (2) Brussels is officially bilingual. I don't object to the fact that it is mentioned or emphasized that the most spoken language in Brussels is French, but Brussels is nevertheless bilingual: Dutch speaking representation in government, Dutch speaking representation in parliament, Dutch language schools, bilingual road signs, etc. (3) Due to the immigration waves relatively seen fewer and fewer people speak French (or Dutch) at home or in their ethnic community (e.g., Turks speak Turkish in their Turkish community). This is a fact and isn't is any way used to say that French isn't the most spoken language in Brussels. However, in contrast to either Flanders or Wallonia the percentage of people of foreign descent is much higher in Brussels, and if the linguistic situation is mentioned, this should be added. Sijo Ripa 11:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I checked the edit history, and I can agree with your edits. Sijo Ripa 11:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

In the course of all edits, the lead was shortened so that the relevant North/South indications were left out, as well as accurate numbers of inhabitants [also relevant to compare references and percentages]. Also twice mentioning of French: "It has two main languages: ca. 60% of its population , mainly in the region Flanders, speak Dutch (while Belgians often refer to it as Flemish), while French is spoken by ca. 35-40%. The inhabitants of the southern region Wallonia speak French." makes it look as if 35-40% of the inhabitants of Flanders and all the inhabitants of Wallonia would speak French. The "Less than 1% speak German in the German-speaking Community" was not a very convincing improvement of style either. I mainly restored the precise version which notes the usage of Belgium's official languages, instead of mixing such with figures of usage of these languages as inhabitant's primary languages. As this was not clearly stated in the much earlier version, I explicitly mentioned the difference in particular for the capital region (where it is most relevant). I also incorporated the references (that had apparently been borrowed from the capital region's article) and added a few more references; the phrase about the German-speaking Community (in the old version was said 1% 'lived in' it, which is not quite correct as within the geographical boundaries of the linguistic community there also live a number of French-speaking inhabitants) was rephrased as 1% being 'part of' this Community. — SomeHuman 02 May2007 03:44 (UTC)

French remains the primary language of Brussels:, but to what extent is unknown. If one starts adding percentages or numbers, other will follow, as the estimates vary wildly. This should not become a page cluttered with a comparison of studies and estimations. We can just stick to it that French is the most spoken language in Brussels, that an unknown minoty speaks Dutch and that immigrants speak other languages (which aren't surveyed, so impossible to know what % speaks what immigrant language). Sijo Ripa 06:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Figures do not at all vary wildly in the high number of proper sources, several of which are new. Just read them, but do such with care:

• 'Brussels' or 'the capital' might mean the City of Brussels (1 municipality) or the Brussels-Capital Region (19 municipalities), or in some cases even the metropolitan urban area (about twice the Region), and unfortunately it is not always clearly stated.
• The figures in my (months old, day before yesterday's and today's) version [though each of my versions got some improvements and especially more and even better references supporting it] are quite accurate and undisputed: these are figures that are wellknown for the language one can safely assume to be the official Belgian language people prefer to speak (badly or fluently, standard language or kind of a dialect), regardless their primary language: English, Turkish, Moroccan, ... do not play in the article for Flanders or for Wallonia, so it should not play for Brussels either. And such is correct and expected, as the non-Belgian languages do not play a part in the general culture, politics, economy, etc of Belgium [though English does play a part in culture and economy]. Indeed there probably are no very accurate estimates for primary languages of immigrants (numbers for nationalities are known but in particular an undoubtedly significant (several percent of the total population) but unpublished number of Belgian nationals are born to immigrants and may speak the foreign language as their primary language (but often not well enough to be a valuable asset to them outside their family and they will speak the local language e.g. at school or when already a bit older at work). That is precisely why the absurd 35-40% of French-speakers in Belgium was way off: the "reference", actually just a comment by a contributor, said this depended on 50% or 100% of the Brussels' residents being speakers of French; not a single serious source pretends Brussels to have more than 90% and no source at all more than 95% of French speakers (and the latter figure probably includes not only foreign immigrants but also Flemish people who are able to use and regularly have to use French in Brussels); not a single source pretends only 50% of the people to be able to speak and to regularly speak some French in Brussels either, that figure might only correspond to the number of residents in Brussels who speak French as their primary language - irrelevant as this is not considered for other regions though there too a most considerable number (lower percentage but on a much more numerous population) speaks a non-Belgian primary language.

Several other characteristics make 'my' version superior to the one you reverted to, for instance style and clarity (see my comment of 2 May here above); consistency: not starting with bordering countries with the Southwesternmost country (a Romance language country), then jumping past the North Sea to 2 Germanic language countries, finally 1 Romance language country again: The one and only normal way of summoning bordering countries (perhaps with an exception in some specific geographical circumstances such as starting at a large water surface), is starting at 12 o'clock and clockwise. In the Belgian case this is all the more obvious since the North Sea is the border in the Northweast, thus the first country clockwise, the Netherlands, is at 12 o'clock and ends with France to the East of the sea. It also creates the logical order of both northernly Germanic countries and then both southernly Romance language countries - which suits the second paragraph. But most of all, all statements are very well referenced, no weaselry or in this case perhaps an attempt to discredit a source like another "reference" in your version in which the contributor wrote "According to some sources ..." and a link to just one source without even mentioning what kind of source this was (I had actually made a proper reference to that linked source, now once again, because it happens to be a proper source).

— SomeHuman 04 May2007 02:01 (UTC)

PS: User:Dionysos1's edit with comment 'german is also a language of the walloon region, not "all" speak french + rephrased one sentence', would not have been provoked had you not reverted, though I appreciate his "Germanic and Latin Europe" instead of (in whichever order) "Germanic and Romance Europe" with his new links. — SomeHuman 04 May2007 03:22 (UTC)

I think the version of SomeHuman is not good. Only rough estimations should belong to the lead! Why because they are stable! Exact numbers must be changed at least each year. Even the number of Belgians is difficult to estimate with exactitude. People intersted in exact numbers have to look in the demographics section where each number must be referered with an clear reference (if possible official).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.175.245.180 (talk • contribs) 06:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

SomeHuman, I'm certain that you edit in good faith, but could you refrain from reverting the text before some consensus has been achieved? The numbers are disputed as can be seen by the numerous other estimates and studies, and three users' comments (including mine). The problem is also that every study receives criticism, especially surveys. The best thing to do would be to create a page "Demography of Brussels" which can deal (among others) with the contradicting ways of measuring and their different results and the criticism. I however think that a lead of a country page is not the place for such discussion and comparison for one city. I think we should stick to the certainties, especially in a lead. Your argument about Flanders and Wallonia is only partially valid: both Flanders' and Wallonia's have about 5-10% of their population which is of foreign origin. As a consequence the impact on the language statistics is much less relevant than when you have a city with 56.5% of people from foreign origin. Moreover, at least several newspaper articles exist which discuss the impact of this fact on the language situation in Brussels. In Flanders and Wallonia I have never read such articles, and if such situation would nevertheless exist it would only apply to some cities, not to the whole of Flanders or Wallonia. Nevertheless, I do not object to mentioning in some way that Dutch/French is language spoken by "almost-all" inhabitants of Flander/Wallonia, instead of "all". PS: I don't really know what the Germanic-Romance thing goes about, so I won't participate in that discussion. Sijo Ripa 09:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't possibly agree with anon's comment that only rough estimations belong in a lead. They are not stable at all for the simple reason that contributors will constantly challenge them, which is easy because sources will be found that give more precise figures. Especially about a country where all too many try to exaggerate/underestimate figures according to personal preferences.

It is however too tedious reading when all relevant figures are in the lead. Only the percentages of the population per region belong there (including indeed very well referenced percentages of French/Dutch balance as the preferred Belgian language for out-of-family communication in Brussels), though as German is the third official language in Belgium, the number of inhabitants of the German-speaking Community needs to be mentioned as well. The former (less than) "1%" however, exaggerated the real figure (73,000) and I think this figure of a medium-sized city is more informative than a percentage of a country's population. There are probably few countries where 73,000 people have their own Minister-President and parliament, this says something about Belgium's sensitivities.

Hence more detailed information on usage of languages, inhabitants of foreign descent, etc, belong indeed in the Demographics section, of this 'Belgium' article: Brussels just happens to be the capital of the country and its demographical data are a constant major issue on national politics (at federal and regional levels) - without Brussels (inside Dutch-speaking Flanders but itself very dominantly French-speaking), nationalist ideas (a few decades ago nationalist and rattachist movements in Wallonia, more recently nationalist politics in Flanders) would have caused Belgium not to have existed any more; but neither culture on each side of the language border can or will afford to lose it and none can solely claim it either. Also, Brussels is for nearly all foreign visitors the first and often the only Belgian city they get to know. It is thus not acceptable to store the data about the capital away into a separate article.

Rather than discussions here, indeed preferrable above 'finding a consensus', is a search for very decent references that have a reputation or authority regarding the subject they reference. I have been doing so since a week and I assume very few statements in the lead or in the Demographics section can now still be honestly disputed.

— SomeHuman 09 May2007 03:43 (UTC)

I strongly object to the sentence "Another 10% inhabits the officially bilingual Brussels-Capital Region, for approximately 85% using French." as it doesn't specify the French language "use". I doubt that as many as 85% use the language at home or in their community (such a figure would indeed be contested by recent research) or can speak it fluently. So the sentence should at least specify the circumstances in which French is used. Furthermore, I still don't think that the lead should be cluttered with discussion about Brussels... I don't say it's cluttered now, but it will be if other views will be added to nuance the current version. Sijo Ripa 15:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

FARC

The article is now featured article removal candidate. Could someone do something to prevent this! Vb 10:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)~

User:Victor12 introduced a large number of fact-tags in the culture section, which indeed is underreferenced. One should however, not go as far as suggesting WP:POINT; some statements mustnot be referenced within this section.

• It is generally impossible to find references stating that something does not exist. The statement saying that "there are no bilingual universities, except the royal military academy, no common media, and no single, common large cultural or scientific organisation where both main communities are represented", can probably not be referenced but does not need it because it is very simply disproven by naming one bilingual university, one common TV or radio station, one common magazine, one common scientific organisation. Not being able to find one demonstrates the correctness of the statement far more convincingly than putting in some reference: references could still be wrong.
• Wikipedia guidelines do not allow to simply rely on linked Wikipedia articles as if such were proper references. On the other hand, if one has to put references in an article on Belgium to prove that Adolphe Sax invented the saxophone, each article will have to drag 500 references and 200 kilobytes along. If an article on Adolphe Sax exists, it will state he invented the musical instrument named after him because that is precisely what made the man notable enough to have an article at all. In such case the reference must be in his article and other articles linking to A. Sax may rely on that. Else every article that mentions about France "In its capital Paris" must immediately have a reference proving that Paris is the capital of France.

I do not have the time right now, to eliminate further ridiculous requests for references. I assume there are more. Better concentrate on referencing the many statements that either require a reference or have to be rephrased: in general the 'culture' section appears to have been written with a bit of overzealous enthousiasm... — SomeHuman 10 May2007 05:08 (UTC)

You're right, I may have gone overboard with fact tagging but even so the Culture section still needs some major editing. I'll try to point out my observations in detail:

• This sentence: The shared element is less important, because there are no bilingual universities... might be better merged with the preceding one and they could share references as the first one (culture concentrates in each communities) is closely related to the second one (lack of shared cultural elements).
• Belgium is well-known for its fine art and architecture. This looks as POV, so unless referenced it should probably be removed
• The Mosan art, the Early Netherlandish,[52] the Flemish Renaissance and Baroque painting,[53] and major examples of Romanesque, Gothic, Renaissance and Baroque architecture, and the Renaissance vocal music of the Franco-Flemish School developed in the southern part of the Low Countries, are milestones in the history of art This needs to be rewritten for clarity
• Famous names in this classic tradition, why classic? As in Greco-roman classic?
• rich artistic production, check Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms
• However, in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, many original artists appeared, original? This sentence would be better of merged with the following one
• Belgium has a thriving contemporary art scene Without a reference this looks like POV

...major non-official holiday is the Saint Nicholas Day, which commemorates the festival of the children and, in Liège, of the students., needs a reference

• Even though I'm a tennis fan, I don't think it is important to mention Clijsters retirement in this article
• Belgians have a reputation for loving waffles and French fried potatoes (both originate from Belgium). needs a reference for the origin claim

That's it for now. Greetings, --Victor12 13:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It says This rich artistic production, referring to the preceding list. Unless you can find someone not agreeing with such being quite 'rich', it is not a peacock term. I added Clijsters ending her career because the phrase mentions "current female tennis champions": she still is a champion though she just decided no longer to keep playing; after some time she will by no means be a 'current' champion and as it only then should become rephrased accordingly anyway, the actuality-clause is not only accurate but also appropriate for now. I removed some more of the (here above not mentioned) overzealous fact-tags.

I consider your argument for merging sentences to be irrelevant, hence invalid: the referenced first sentence does indeed highly concur with the second, therefore its references makes no further reference required. The requirements for references, mustnot force rephrasing either towards long sentences or towards another style of writing. The current phrasing appears good enough. — SomeHuman 12 May2007 05:09 (UTC)

Fair enough, however I would like to insist on some points.

• Belgium is well-known for its fine art and architecture. This looks as POV, as it is not supported by the following sentences. It needs a source or to be rephrased.
• The Mosan art, the Early Netherlandish,[52] the Flemish Renaissance and Baroque painting,[53] and major examples of Romanesque, Gothic, Renaissance and Baroque architecture, and the Renaissance vocal music of the Franco-Flemish School developed in the southern part of the Low Countries, are milestones in the history of art This needs to be rewritten for clarity as it is an extremely convoluted sentence.
• Famous names in this classic tradition The term "classic" lends itself to confusion as to what exactly it refers to
• Belgium has a thriving contemporary art scene, with internationally renowned artists such as Jan Fabre and the painter Luc Tuymans Having internationally renowned artists is not proof of the existance of a thriving nationla art scene
• My objection to the Clijsters sentence is that it goes into unnecessary detail about her retirement. It could just say "Belgium has two current female tennis champions: the recently retired Kim Clijsters,[67] and Justine Henin."
• Belgians have a reputation for loving waffles and French fried potatoes (both originate from Belgium). needs a reference for the origin claim, as the article waffles does not mention their belgian origins (on the contrary it mentions a variety of waffles from around the world) and the French fried potatoes article states their origins are controversial.

Greetings, --Victor12 18:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Unlike a few other arguments, I didn't comment on the here repeated remarks because I mainly think you're quite right about those (though the Mosan art sentence is not that bad, I would only alter or drop a few words). For Clijsters, I'd wait to change the text till she actually skipped a few tournaments: for now it is still an announcement. I don't assume she might come back on her decision soon, but other people have been known not to quit after having announced such. For now, WP should not take this as an accomplished fact. If you read the French fried potatoes article carefully, you will find that the Belgian origin is not seriously contested (apart from a few wild claims and Americans thinking of a French origin which the French mainly deny) but rather acknowledged, even though it is not finally and undisputably proven (and most likely never will be). That's why the consensus of Europeans in general about a Belgian origin should become expressed instead of a blunt claim - but we'll have to find a way to express this without triggering more questions and yet without putting too much weight on it. I've no idea about the origin of waffles; if a proper source shows this to be Belgian, it should also become stated in the Waffles article. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 12 May2007 21:53 (UTC)

Brussels in the lead

I don't agree with the importance SomeHuman wants to give Brussels in the lead. In particular, though I agree with this sentence: "In this enclave within the Flemish Region however, neither language is the primary one for roughly half of the residents.[4][5][6]" I don't agree with putting it within the lead. I think this is POV! If one says this in the lead one need to say much more. A good compromise would be IMHO to put this comment as a footnote of the lead. I have already tried to do so. SomeHuman reverted my edits several times. Moreover I don't understand why SomeHuman insists on the order Flanders-Brussels-Wallonia in the lead. Why not Flanders-Wallonia-Brussels (order of number of inhabitants)? Vb09:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The POV is in stating that in Brussels 85% speaks French, while it is not correct to give vague figures or "a majority" either: the figure needs to be said because the paragraph handles precisely the complex linguistic situation (in this subsentence: a mainly French-speaking region within the Dutch-speaking region). Thus I changed "speak French" (which strongly suggests native speakers) to "use French". Even then, everyone reading the lead will assume 85% of the Brussels population to be native speakers of French, while the latter actually form a minority (like the speakers of any other Belgian or foreign language). Thus not only is this addition not some POV, the very unusual fact that the capital has about 50% of native speakers of languages that are neither Belgian nor of one of the neighbouring countries, does put the linguistic discussions between Dutch- and French-speakers regarding Brussels in a rather curious perspective — and yes, this has clearly been noted. This too contributes to the complexity described in that paragraph.

As the information is necessary to relativate the equally necessary 85%, it cannot occur in a footnote. Footnotes are not intended to be read by the average reader (they make reading only tougher, for one who wants to get the finest detail or proof). And Wikipedia guidelines do specify that many readers only read the lead. It should thus definitely not mislead, which would occur by putting all too relevant information down in the more comprehensive section only.

The order is the more stylish: It does not require to specify as many percentages (e.g. for the population of Wallonia) because Brussels does require that percentage (else one would think the 85% to be some mistake). It is also needed because the Walloon region happens to incorporate the German-speaking Community. "My" order allows handling Dutch and French before mentioning yet another language spoken by a very small minority. Also it makes referring to the immediately forementioned Dutch (minority) and Flemish Region (enclave) appear much less jumping forth-and-back as when the enclave would be mentioned at the end of the paragraph as "your" order would do. Also geographically, we think north-to-south and thus in "my" order.

Thus changing that order would be highly POV, in particular because the second largest language gets mentioned just as quickly in "my" order: the only 'advantage' of "your" order would be that the regions are mentioned in order of their population numbers, which does not outweigh the disadvantage of jumping from Dutch to French to German to once again French and then twice Dutch, especially since the paragraph's topic is not 'regions of Belgium' but the linguistic (my order) division, which is complex enough without making the paragraph unreadably complex.

P.S.: The weight on Brussels is relevant: not only can one not say anything sensible and NPOV about Brussels in a much shorter way, while the situation in the most populous region is relatively simple; the capital is internationally very wellknown (better than the country perhaps, by name as well as by the more visited locality), and it plays an important role within Belgium, besides for obvious reasons (capital, international organizations) also in the linguistic political field. Not that I like Brussels all that much, it's just an observation of facts.

Kind regards. — SomeHuman 21 May2007 16:32-17:09 (UTC)

I agree with your arguments but I don't agree with putting the aforementioned sentence in the lead for the following reason. The thesis of many flemish nationalists is that Brussels stands as a multi-cultural Flemish city. French is considered as a minority language as Arabic, Turkish, Yiddish or Italian. They have geographic arguments like "Brussels is an enclave" (which can be disputed since Brussels is separated from Wallonia by only one municipality with French-speaking minority) or historic arguments like "the official language in Brussels used to be Dutch in the first half of the 19th century". On the other hand the French-speaking Belgians consider Brussels as a French-speaking city with a small Flemish minority. This dispute is not only rhetorical but of major importance in the case Belgium would split. Of course both opinions may be discussed. I however think this discussion does not belong to the lead. I therefore support the removal of the sentence from the lead (or at least its move to a footnote) and also some words making more explicit how difficult it is to provide an estimate for the number of French speaker in Brussels. Vb06:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are taking a personal view as a guideline: You do not accept the reality. Brussels IS an enclave, just as much as Baarle-Hertog. The one municipality does make all the difference (and there used to be many more municipalities: the current province of Walloon Brabant was Dutch-speaking). The article mustnot be altered because some people do not appreciate that reality. And it mustnot be tucked away somewhere far out of sight either, precisely because it is such an important aspect. Discussions on Flemish/Walloon viewpoints on that reality would not belong in the lead, and those are not there. From your reasoning, one could not mention Brussels to be using French in about 85% of the conversations either: some people do not appreciate that reality, and could demand to put only the official status, bilingual, in the lead. Surely the merely 70,000 people speaking German make a lesser percentage of Wallonia than the speakers of Dutch in Brussels (and less, even in absolute numbers), we could not mention them in the lead either. Such cleaned-out lead is not very helpful for the readers: the paragraph is there to point out the complexity which determines the political situation. The structure of the country belongs before demographics; who would understand why Belgium has chosen its overly complex type of regionalization if it were only a country with a northern and a southern people, which you would make it in the lead?

I do not know whether Dutch was the official language in Brussels, it surely was the native language and not just in the first half of the 19th century, but during its entire history. The French-speaking majority is a lot more recent: While French had become increasingly used since the end of the 18th century, only well into the 20th century it became the majority language. That aspect is not in the lead, it (or parts of it) is only mentioned in the demographics section - which appears the to be right place.

About 'many Flemish nationalists'... I hear conversations between VB-voters, though even they do not claim French to be a minority language in Brussels. They do still feel that Hugo Schiltz sold out Flanders by conceding to the regionalization making Brussels and the southern Brabantian municipalitis bilingual and French-speaking respectively (as I still heard when Schiltz died, recently). But that regionalization making Brussels an enclave by merely one municipality separated from Wallonia, is the Belgian reality. — SomeHuman 25 May2007 05:39 (UTC)

Dear SomeHuman, I really agree with the point that Brussels IS an enclave and I also agree that the number 85% is somehow POV-pushing. I however utterly disagree with putting this in the lead. Just looking at the map of the regions and communities prove the reader of this article that Brussels is an enclave! It is even not worth writing it! This is simply a true fact. What you say about Flemish spoken as a native language in Walloon Brabant and Brussels is also very true. I utterly agree. About the 85% number I think we should add some comment in the lead to tell how approximative this number is. However I stick to the point that the enclave sentence belongs elsewhere (for example as a footnote) Vb 06:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

No way. There is no POV-pushing involved, just stating the most important facts, and these are very well sourced precisely because some people of either language do not like to admit the reality. You bring no arguments, you just want to make the information disappear. You are alone in this as well. (The FARC had no comment on what is now in that paragraph.) — SomeHuman 25 May2007 08:10 (UTC)

Oh yes! Stating well-refered facts can be POV pushing! It all depends how and where it is done. The enclave argument (as well as the 85%) is an argument which must be included in a context and a discussion. Standing alone it is simply POV pushing. I already suggested alternative compromises that you repeatedly refused. I don't want the information to disappear. I just want the lead to stay short as do the reviewers of the FARC discussion. If you still refuse any compromise in this direction I will have to use the POV tag. Vb 07:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

See also #Let's do some real work, please. — SomeHuman 05 Jun2007 15:48 (UTC)

Coummunities and Regions

I don't understand why the maps of the regions and communities should be removed. They are IMHO very important. This is for strangers very difficult to imagine the respective size and overlapping between the different entities without any graphical representation. I morevore think the new array showing the competences of the different bodies unclear and moreover only approximative. It doesn't help naybody who ignores the Belgian situation. Vb

• I really do not understand what the table has here to do! Nobody understand the word "facilities" outside of Belgium. We really don't need that amount of details. The paragraph which someHuman repeatedly deletes is a long compromise between the editors who promoted the article for the second time to its current featured status. Please improve it. Don't delete it. Vb 11:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with the three new paragraphs. They are a real improvement to the older paragraph. I regret however the concrete example about schools in Brussels which was IMHO very illumnating. Moreover I simply don't understand the table about the competences of the different bodies. What does provision mean in this context? Do you really think the facilities interest the reader of this general article? Vb 09:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I do. It is important to understand not only the regionalization's cautiousness for minorities (a returning issue), also for instance B-H-V which is mentioned in the Politics section. And the note under at the table does provide a link to the article on facilities. If it would not interest anyone, why would Wikipedia have a whole article on the topic? The table is the only one on WP that shows the four Constitutional language areas (an aspect entirely overlooked in the text) and how these are linked to the people (and hence facilities) and to the three other constitutional levels having geograpical limitations on competences.

The 'language areas' (Dutch taalgebieden are on WP usually called 'linguistic regions' (French régions linguistiques), though it has nothing to do with the (in particular in English) rather scientific concept of 'linguistics' and the term 'region' is confusing with the Regions of Flanders, Wallonia and Brussels-Capital. The language areas predate the regionalization and formed the basis of the three Regions and three Communities with their overlaps: there is no overlap with language areas [considering one is the 'bi'-lingual language area]. These for the regionalization historically so important and still constitutional fully upheld institutions of the language areas require a place properly clarifying their relation with the other institutions, which would take a lengthy and unreadable text, hence the table. Of course these constitutional institutions do not have their own political representation and thus one does not promote their names as eagerly, but they are more fundamental than the Regions or the Communities. Furthermore these may help the intelligent reader to understanding why the institutional Communities have geographical boundaries contrarily to the communities as groups of people.

I would think that 'Provisions for individuals & organisations expressing themselves in Dutch', 'Provisions for individuals & organisations expressing themselves in French' and 'Provisions for individuals & organisations expressing themselves in German' speaks for itself: 'Provisions' can hardly be misunderstood as the providing of a supply of food. If you know a better term to express Measures taken so as to ensure necessary assistance or help is made available, I'll welcome it.

By the way, I think you appreciate my returning the maps. (I don't think they are needed, because of their presence in the linked main article, but now at least they do not take such an overwhelmingly large place any more - as such they are not too bad as illustration.)

— SomeHuman 25 May2007 08:10 (UTC)

I still think the table is not clear. The words facility, provision and obvious must be explained in order to make the table understandable by foreigners. This would however lead to a too deep detailed description of the Belgian federal system. I think the best would be to replace the table by a short paragraph about the territorial comptences of the Belgian federal bodies. I'll work on this. However, since your English is definitively better than mine, I encourage you to check this for spelling. Vb 08:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't see any reason why 'provision' should require explaining: its usage in the table will appear very normal to (natively) English-speakers. I do not write on the English-language Wikipedia for it to be understandable specifically by foreigners (non-native speakers of English) as there should then better be a Pidgin-language Wikipedia for them, nor do I assume non-Belgians (as I assume you mean by foreigners) not to be able to read English or not to understand what a table is. Anyone able to read any table could not possibly be surprised that the field on the row of 'Dutch language area' and the column of 'individuals & organisations expressing themselves in Dutch', shows 'obvious'. Moreover, the table does explain 'facilities' by including a link to the article on that topic, even under the very first word, 'Facilities', in the small paragraph; and that paragraph is exactly where one expects it to be when finding an unclear term followed with a figure between parenthesis.

I rather resent your removal of the table with edit comment "rm table according to discussion. The info has been put and refered in the languages section": a discussion requires more than one person and there appears to be only you. Furthermore, you do not deny any of the arguments (another aspect of a discussion) which I presented here above. Certainly not all of the info is in the languages section and the latter does not allow a systematic overview as the table does. The table belongs in its 'Communities...' section as it clarifies the different power levels and their respective subjects. — SomeHuman 31 May2007 23:43 (UTC)

Perhaps the problem is a lack of understanding of the English language on your behalf. With edit comment "What is the Belgian era?", you modified "Historical contributions to the development of science and technology continue through the Belgian era." towards "Historical contributions to the development of science and technology were made in Belgium." — Those are completely different statements. The first mentions a history of S&T that continued after Belgium came to exist (exemplified by the famous people "of the Early Modern Age in the Low Countries" in the next sentence, and Belgians further on), the modified sentence is rather ridiculous as S&T after 1830 would better not be called 'historical contributions' when immediately followed by great contributions several centuries earlier. By the way, in this context "through the Belgian era" is exactly what it says, "Belgian times, the period of Belgium", understand: 'after contributions (suggested connotation: of meanwhile historical value and thus) in historical times, there were more contributions (suggested connotation: making history) all along the period that Belgium exists '. — SomeHuman 01 Jun2007 00:12 (UTC)

Dear SomeHuman,

• I meant by foreigners "non Belgian". I think the table isn't understandable by non Belgians. I think we need sentences! No table! You should maybe have a look at the versions of the Belgium article before it got for the second time featured. We have tried so many tables before we got back to texts! I therefore tried to write a paragraph which makes this clear. I am going to put this paragraph again. Please don't remove it. Improve it! Vb
• About the word "era". I understant that word. But at most "Belgian era" could mean "Since 1830" which is clearer because "era" is usually used for a period of time like the "swing era", the "Babylonian era", "French Empire era", "the era of the Belgian colonies", i.e. period of time which somehow marked history. I therefore think this should be somehow reworded. Vb 07:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

To make my point clearer. Which provisions are meant? What are facilities? What are linguitic regions? The table cannot be understood without looking at the "very badly referred" subarticles. This is the reason why I wrote the paragraph in languages about linguistic regions. And, as I wrote it, I realized the table was not needed anymore. Vb 07:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

'The Belgian era' is in this context quite clearly a specific period of time.

The table is as clear as the complex Belgian institutions allow, much more informative than your text. About this table, there is no 'we' but only 'you'. In particular as your text merely repeats what is already in the article. The linguistic regions are now clearly mentioned in the text and named in the table. The phrase about Art. 4 on the municipalities does not appear relevant without a legal analysis that definitely does not belong in this article, so only that went into the footnote, all other information of your text is utterly redundant. By the way, you need to lo in the 'Communities...' section for my text on language areas aka linguistic regions, before the table. That is where this information belongs, not in the 'Culture' section.

And please log on before saving edits, as I repeatedly asked you to to. Else, I will not address you as a regular contributor but without commenting regard you as any other anomymous IP-er who want to force his/her highly personal things into an article. — SomeHuman 01 Jun2007 09:14 (UTC)

• Sorry but "Belgian era" begins in 1830 or is just a nonsense or POV. Vb 11:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• No I don't think so. See my suggested compromise below. Vb 11:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• I have private reasons not to do so Vb 11:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I moved your replies outside my comment, it is unpolite and improper to insert replies, and considered disruptive as well as endangering readability not to put comments always at the bottom of a talk section. You can refer to "your 1st/2nd/3rd paragraph here above" etc if needed. It is considered rude to put each of your comments at the left margin (I always had to give your comments a proper indent before answering). And 'private reasons'...

"Since 1830" is not mentioned in the article (hence 'Belgian era' is better than even I assumed, as it is not POV). One should not accuse people of POV on a talk page: that is the place for discussions and expressing personal viewpoints is proper. The only 'POV' could be that the Dutch as the only country in the world consider 1839 to be the start of the Belgian era: King Albert I came to the Belgian throne in 1831, after the self-declared independence in 1830.

You "do not think so". What? The table being clear? (You agree Belgium to have complex institutions.) The table to be more informative? The linguistic regions to be mentioned in the text? Their being named in the table? The phrase about municipalities to be more relevant, or it to be understandable without thorough legal analysis? Your text to be redundant? (I'll prove it in a moment, because that suffices by itself to keep that text out of the article) Your text not to belong in the 'Culture' section, where you continue to insert it? That same text about linguistic regions and parliamentary Regions not rather to belong in the 'Communities and regions' section? Your edit comment "I insist" when once again after my arguments putting the duplicating text back, does not bring any more arguments than "I do not think so". Without such, this is not a discussion and can only lead to an edit war, however nice you might like to ask me not to 'start' one: You do not own the article at your sovereign whimses or 'thoughts' or 'private reasons'...

I assume you cannot log on from your employer's console as the security system may not allow submission of the log-on, though I doubt if than you could submit an edit. Anyway, since your IP keeps changing on article edits, you cannot assume other contributors to keep on trying to keep track of such. If there would be an exceptionally valid private reason, consider signing EVERY edit by 'Vb' in front of the '/*' (section name) '*/'. This is not a standard at all, but would be an improvement.

Now, I'll reset the indentation and first show your text in grey colour:

Though there is no official census on the use of languages in Belgium, each municipality's official language is univoquely determined by the law. Each municipality belongs to only one of four linguistic regions: the Dutch-speaking, the French-speaking, the German-speaking region and the Dutch-French bilingual region of Brussels. The Dutch-speaking region is the territory of the Flanders Region; the German-speaking region is the territory of the German-speaking Community; the bilingual region of Brussels is the territory of the Region Brussels-Capital; the French-speaking region corresponds to the rest of the Belgian territory (Wallonia without the territory of the German-speaking Community). In each of these linguistic regions the use of languages for contacts with public authorities, as regards administration, the law, education and labour relations in companies is ruled by the law: in the Dutch-speaking region, the official language is Dutch, in the French-speaking region, French, in the German-speaking region, German, and, in the Dutch-French bilingual region of Brussels, both French and Dutch on an equal footing. However there are some exceptions: in some few municipalities bordering the linguistic regions — the so-called communes with special status or communes with linguistic facilities— other languages can be used to contact local authorities.

Now I'll direct you towards what already is in the article:

• "There are no official statistics on Belgium's three official languages (or their dialects) that inhabitants prefer. As no census exists" (Culture/Languages — and if I'm not mistaken, I worded it like that because of your insisting much earlier.
• "The country's constitution was revised on 1993-07-14, still based on the earlier determined four language areas (taalgebieden in Dutch, Sprachgebiete in German) or linguistic regions (régions linguistiques in French),[24]" (Communities and regions) and even the index goes to exactly the first reference that accompanies your text (though the publisher is identified as the Belgian Senate instead of the Federal Parliament of the url in your reference, which is only a portal on which one still has to navigate to the Constitution (with 3 't's, not 2).
• The table's first column, named "Linguistic regions", contains four rows: "Dutch language area/French language area/Bilingual area Brussels-Capital/German language area" and each row shows which institutional authority may excercise its powers (while your "The Dutch-speaking region is the territory of the Flanders Region" is incorrect, they merely coincide; "the bilingual region of Brussels is the territory of the Region Brussels-Capital" is extremely wrong, though they do coincide; instead of "the rest of the Belgian territory", I would have used 'remainder' and for style avoid using 'territory' over and over again — for occasions requiring such, most often a table offers a better solution).
• "the territory of the Brussels-Capital Region (which came to be nearly a decade after the other regions) is included in both Flemish and French Communities" while it being "officially bilingual" is in the lead and mentioned several times elsewhere, and the text underneath the table expresses the powers of the Communities.
• The table mentions the 'facilities' and where they exist and for whom, and provides a link to the relevant Wikipedia article. One avoids "communes", that's a 1968ish way of living together; the encyclopaedic and unambiguous term is "municipalities". Your "in some few municipalities bordering the linguistic regions — the so-called communes with special status or communes with linguistic facilities— other languages can be used to contact local authorities" (besides containing language errors like 'some few') is false (or at least easily falsely interpreted): "other languages" is never correct, there is never more than one 'other language' that can be used in a municipality, see the table... ;-)
• Your link to a glossary mentioning amongst many other terms "Commune with linguistic facilities: Commune in which the inhabitants can use a language other than the official language of the linguistic region to which the commune belongs for their contacts with the public authorities (e.g. commune located in the French language region in which it is authorised to use German)." is superfluous, as this is not only clear from the table (with much more detail and mentioning the number of municipalities where-and-for-whom), but also in the Wikipedia article on the topic. I assume one might demand a source for the smaller print and for the main columns of the table, but further attention to 'facilities' does not belong in the main article on Belgium, and sources should already occur in the section's 'Main article' on 'Communities, regions and linguistic regions' and must be in the linked article on the facilities; giving such here requires more than the glossary definition and would here appear to be an overkill.
• Your info on municipalities in Art.4 of the Constitution is mentioned in a footnote, and that is more than enough as I argumented earlier.

I don't see much in your text that is not yet here above, do you? — SomeHuman 01 Jun2007 19:21 (UTC)

Dear SomeHuman,

The table I suggest latter would be OK for me. I think the table is clearer than before. The reference to the CRISP site is necessary because the concepts of linguistic regions and of municipalities with facilities should not be assumed to be known for any reader and therefore proven by an official reference. The term commune is not mine but stamms from both reference (translation of the Belgian constitution and glossary of CRISP, i.e. both authoritative references).

Vb 09:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

See also #Let's do some real work, please. — SomeHuman 05 Jun2007 15:48 (UTC)

PS: The column header 'Provisions for' (which you had found uninformative) was replaced with 'Authorities rendering services in the language of', and now forms one field with the line thereunder 'individuals & organisations expressing themselves' (above 'in Dutch', 'in French', 'in German'). — SomeHuman 05 Jun2007 23:07 (UTC)

undoubtedly wellknown

Could someone copyedit this paragraph. I already tried once but was reverted. Maybe is my English not better. I particlarly doubt about <<the "undoubtedly wellknown" better multilingualism>>

A survey published in 2006 by the Université Catholique de Louvain showed the "undoubtedly wellknown" better multilingualism in Flanders to be considerable : 59% of the Flemish respondents can speak French and 53% English; of the Walloons on the other hand, merely 19% Dutch and 17% English; of the Brussels' residents, 95% declare to be able to speak French, 59% Dutch, and 41% the non-local English. In their respective regions 59, 10, and 28 percent of people under forty can speak all three languages. In each region, German is notably less known than any of the forementioned languages.[46][4]

Thanks Vb 09:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It is acceptable English, 'multilingualism' is 'ability to speak multiple languages' and thus 'the better multilingualism' can only be interpreted as 'the better ability to speak multiple languages'. Since 'multilingual' is not an everyday word in English (mainly because it is an uncommon asset amongst native speakers of English), 'multilingualism' is even more unusual — but not wrong. And "undoubtedly wellknown" just means that. The phrase "showed the undoubtedly wellknown better multilingualism in Flanders to be considerable" is borrowed from the referenced quote "montrent que la Flandre est bien plus multilingue, ce qui est sans doute un fait bien connu, mais la différence est considérable " (more literally, "showed that Flanders is clearly more multilingual, which is without doubt a wellknown fact, but the difference is considerable"). Since I contracted the typically lengthy French style, I only put quote marks around "undoubtedly wellknown" as this is a most correct translation for an apparently 'unencyclopaedic' statement — unless making very clear it to be a quote.

For instance, "showed the undoubtedly wellknown better ability to speak multiple languages in Flanders to be considerable" would incorrectly mean than anyone would become multilingual as soon as one steps on Flemish territory; "showed the undoubtedly wellknown better ability in Flanders to speak multiple languages to be considerable" could be considered, but might be misinterpreted at least by some readers as if it were wellknown in Flanders only, and allows the same false interpretation as the forementioned phrase. I do not want to use the more easily incorporated expression 'the Flemish' instead of 'in Flanders', as the study did not envolve ethnicity but compared regions in which also non-native people live. I do feel there might be a more appropriate adjective, simply to replace the word 'better', which could make reading more fluently — but so far one didn't pop into my mind (combined with multilingualism, the meaning mustnot deviate from —nor exaggerate— 'better at speaking multiple languages') — the French 'bien plus' means 'clearly more', but 'more multilingualism' is not correct. And 'the "undoubtedly wellknown' larger multilingual capacity in Flanders' expresses a possibility for the future instead of the present-day achievement; 'the "undoubtedly wellknown" greater multilingual ability in Flanders to be considerable' does not make clear that the greater ability than already wellknown is so considerable, it appears too much as if one simply repeats the ability to be 'greater' and to be 'considerable'. Hence, as each word actually counts, the phrase might better be maintained. — SomeHuman 31 May2007 23:01 (UTC)

Perhaps you can consider the WP:FARC to have (nearly) caused 'Belgium' to loose its 'Featured article' status. An earlier version of the phrase you are unhappy with, had been mentioned explicitly as problematic and I made minute changes so as to attempt to comply, and ended up with the one you quoted here above and still feel unhappy about. After numerous other improvements, most by myself, the current phrase did not prevent the article being put up for promotion again... — SomeHuman 01 Jun2007 00:33 (UTC)

Well I understand what does the sentence mean. I also think the meaning is univoque. However I doubt about the style. The words "undoubtedly wellknown" should be IMHO replaced by a subsentence. There are in the sentence too many adjectives and complicated (unusual) words put alltogether. The sentence need a bit of air! It is difficult to answer to question "what is considerable?" The fact that the multilingualism is better in Flanders? The fact that the multilingualism is undoubtedly wellknown? Maybe a careful grammatic analysis of the sentence can help. I however think we could write this simpler. Vb 07:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

English is not French, it does not need a lot of wind; compact sentences by meaningful successive words without many prepositions etc, is a major characteristic of the language. And one reason for its continued gaining world-wide importance. The (whatever is said about) multilinguism is considerable, plain grammar. Thus the better mulilinguism is undoubtedly wellknown, and the better multilinguism is considerable - which means a considerably better multilinguism. But not a considerably better multilinguism is wellknown, just better multilinguism is. And there is no doubt about it being wellknown either. Plain English. "Considerably undoubtely wellknown" or "considerably undoubtedly" whatever, is not English, hence the interpretation of my phrase as if 'The fact that the multilingualism is undoubtedly wellknown' would be considerable, could not occur to the English mind. — SomeHuman 01 Jun2007 16:18-16:34 (UTC)

I simply think we could write it better. Let me try the following. Maybe you'll understand what I mean:

A survey published in 2006 by the Université Catholique de Louvain showed that multilingualism is much wider spread in Flanders and Brussels : 59% of the Flemish respondents can speak French and 53% English; of the Walloons on the other hand, merely 19% Dutch and 17% English; of the Brussels' residents, 95% declare to be able to speak French, 59% Dutch, and 41% the non-local English. In their respective regions 59, 10, and 28 percent of people under forty can speak all three languages. In each region, German is notably less known than any of the forementioned languages.[46][4]

or maybe

A survey published in 2006 by the Université Catholique de Louvain showed the multilingualism in Flanders and Brussels to be considerably better : 59% of the Flemish respondents can speak French and 53% English; of the Walloons on the other hand, merely 19% Dutch and 17% English; of the Brussels' residents, 95% declare to be able to speak French, 59% Dutch, and 41% the non-local English. In their respective regions 59, 10, and 28 percent of people under forty can speak all three languages. In each region, German is notably less known than any of the forementioned languages.[46][4]

or even

A survey published in 2006 by the Université Catholique de Louvain showed the multilingualism in Flanders and Brussels to be considerable : 59% of the Flemish respondents can speak French and 53% English; of the Walloons on the other hand, merely 19% Dutch and 17% English; of the Brussels' residents, 95% declare to be able to speak French, 59% Dutch, and 41% the non-local English. In their respective regions 59, 10, and 28 percent of people under forty can speak all three languages. In each region, German is notably less known than any of the forementioned languages.[46][4]

The insertion of the "undoubtedly wellknown" makes the sentence almost unreadable. Do we really need those words? Do they make so much sence? Vb 21:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

At least my version follows the reference, which does not in the least mention 'Flanders and Brussels' in that same sentence and my version does not shuffle away the report expressing surprise about the difference being even more considerable than was already wellknown, nor that the multilingualism in Flanders was already undoubtedly wellknown. Perhaps you would prefer:

In 2006, the French Community's coheir of Belgium's oldest university published a survey report calling Flanders' leadership in speaking multiple languages "undoubtedly wellknown", and showing this ability to be considerably superior: (the rest of the paragraph remains unchanged)

For the last time, I indented your comment - unless perhaps you have some more 'personal reasons' for not following those Wikipedia conventions either. — SomeHuman 05 Jun2007 03:01 (UTC)

See also #Let's do some real work, please. — SomeHuman 05 Jun2007 15:48 (UTC)

Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg

An anon IP contributor, asumedly Vb, modified "Belgium and the Netherlands had a distinguishable course of history from sixteenth century onwards." into "Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg had a distinguishable course of history from sixteenth century onwards." I assume this to be an error: the present-day countries Belgium and Luxemburg had a largely identical course of history for two more centuries. One might write "Belgium and Luxembourg had a course of history distinguishable from that of the Netherlands from sixteenth century onwards", and so I did. Perhaps however, this statement is not perfectly correct either and since the article is 'Belgium', and the further explained course of history is thus that of Belgium (and its relations with the Netherlands), one might go back towards the original text rather than elaborating about for this article assumedly irelevant specificities. — SomeHuman 01 Jun2007 03:06 (UTC)

You are right. The preceding phrasing forgot about Luxembourg. But your change is an improvement. Vb 06:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Linguistic regions table

Dear SomeHuman,

What do you think about this compromise? This is a table my limited brain can understand.

Linguistic region	Official language	Authority, limited to their respective competences, of
		the Communities			the Regions (and their provinces)			the Federal government
		Flemish	French	German- speaking	Flemish	Walloon	Brussels- Capital
Dutch language area	Dutch	×	-	-	×	-	-	×
French language area	French	-	×	-	-	×	-	×
Bilingual area Brussels-Capital	Dutch and French	×	×	-	-	-	×	×
German language area	German	-	-	×	-	×	-	×
	In each of these linguistic regions the official languages are used for contacts with public authorities, as regards administration, the law, education and labour relations in companies. However there are some exceptions: in some few municipalities bordering the linguistic regions —the so-called communes with special status or communes with linguistic facilities— other languages can be used to contact local authorities.

Vb 11:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not a compromise, it is obliterating the equally relevant provisions (obviously available facilities, the special facilities that are normally called 'Facilities' in the Belgian linguistic context, or no facilitating measures taken) for individuals etc. expressing themselves in the three national languages. If you do not understand that part, perhaps others do - give them a chance ;-)

You ask me to read your comments, I already did so and commented on those; you however do not bring arguments. 'Your' compromise does not offer any advantage (it takes just as much room in the article). Your table's 2nd column repeats the first as for Brussels the languages are not to be mistaken by the following columns (and of course the article text). Your text keeps repeating what is already in the article - and it is already oversized (accepted by the FARC only because so much is taken by the references, the article itself was not (much) too long.

What I am missing in your table is a definition of "obvious provisions". Which "obvious provisions" do have individuals expressing themselves in Dutch in Flanders? I think the provisions they have is that they can contact the administration in their own languange. I don't know whether a Chinese citizen would understand these provisions as obvious. And if so obvious : why do we need a table for it? Vb 22:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Indent your comments. If Chinese citizens are expressing themselves in Dutch in the Dutch language area, they too have the obvious advantage of being helped in a language they can understand. Stop behaving like this. You do not help Wikipedia. — SomeHuman 05 Jun2007 03:21 (UTC)

SomeHuman, please stop getting rude. Don't you think the sentence "individual expressing themselves in Dutch have obvious provisions in the Dutch language area" could be replaced by the simpler "Dutch is the official language of the Dutch language area"? If so I guess you must agree with me that my suggested table is easier to read than yours. I don't want to push any POV. Vb06:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

See also #Let's do some real work, please. — SomeHuman 05 Jun2007 15:48 (UTC)

PS: The simple table modification I just described in the talk page section (erroneously spelled) #Coummunities and Regions now clarifies 'provisions' and thus why these are obvious for matching language areas. — SomeHuman 05 Jun2007 23:17 (UTC)

Belgian era

The Belgian era (if there exists any) begins in 1830 (maybe 1839 for the Dutch). In the section about science and technology, it seems the Belgian era begins at the time when the Southern and Northern Netherlands began to split. I therefore think stating a Belgian era before 1830 is somehow POV because it assumes the existence of a Belgian nation much before 1830. Vb 22:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The sentence "Historical contributions to the development of science and technology continue through the Belgian era. " could be changed into : "New contributions to science and technology started to develop, as within the rest of Europe, in the Renaissance period." . This is just a first try to reformulate this sentence, but "Belgian era" certainly can't be used. JoJan 09:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

JoJan, there is more on this phrase elsewhere on this page. I have stopped feeding the troll who started this section on that topic after too many earlier non-discussions by continuous lack of proper arguments from one side, and I do not intend to repeat my arguments. — SomeHuman 05 Jun2007 03:07 (UTC)

Dear SomeHuman, I am sorry but I don't consider myself as a troll. You are beginning to lose your self-control. I am the one who got that article featured for the second time with the help of many bright editors. I am very committed to NPOV and this is precisely why I don't like the word 'Belgian era' in the sense you use it. Vb 06:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

So, can we agree then on the words "Renaissance period", since this carries no political or territorial implications, but just a time frame ? JoJan 07:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Vb 08:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Not a good idea : it is the article about Belgium, not about the 'Renaissance' which predates the kingdom by centuries, and certainly not that of 'Renaissance in Europe', 'historical' is good enough here and leaves the weight on the Belgians having continued the scientific interest and contributions. See also #Let's do some real work, please. — SomeHuman 05 Jun2007 15:48 (UTC)

Fisrt paragraph of the section Communities and Regions

I don't agree with the following paragraph:

The country's constitution was revised on 14 July 1993, still based on the earlier determined four language areas (taalgebieden in Dutch, Sprachgebiete in German) or linguistic regions (régions linguistiques in French),[24] to create a unique federal state with competences based on three levels:

I think the ", still based on the earlier determined four language areas (taalgebieden in Dutch, Sprachgebiete in German) or linguistic regions (régions linguistiques in French),[24]" part should be removed and the info (which is for sure relevant) put later in the paragraph. This is far too technical. The style is also too intricated and make the reading difficult. Vb 09:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It is at the logical and properly prominent place, and again you simply try to get rid of what does not match your POV. — SomeHuman 05 Jun2007 03:06 (UTC)

No I don't. I utterly agree with the sense of the sentence. I simply don't agree with its style and with the place of this info at the beginning of the section. Vb 06:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

See also #Let's do some real work, please. — SomeHuman 05 Jun2007 15:48 (UTC)

The Brabançonne

The infobox mentions as anthem "The Brabançonne". Perhaps better "La Brabançonne" (In German it is "die Brabançonne" and in Dutch one says "de Brabançonne", without ever translating the anthem's clearly French name dating from the officially unilingual French-speaking Belgium: written during the Revolution of 1830 and adopted as anthem in 1860; the definite article does not appear to be a necessary part of the actual name). The infobox wrongly translates this as "The Song of Brabant". Though an anthem is musical and in this case the French-language lyrics predate the music, the very name of this one does not include a term like 'song': "çonne" has nothing to do with the French word "sonne" (from sonner, to sound) but is a suffix: "Brabançonne" simply means "Brabantian" (the Brabantian woman? — the implied French-language term is feminine for sure, thus certainly not the older Brabantian duchy (le duché du Brabant) hence Le Brabançon (male in French). Neither is it 'the Brabantian song', which would indeed have been la chanson du Brabant but in German das Lied von Brabant and thus das Brabançonne but the latter is an error and in Dutch het lied van Brabant and thus het Brabançonne and that too is an error. (For similar reasons, it cannot have meant 'the march of Brabant' either.) It is not the Brabantian fatherland as la patrie brabançonne see e.g.[2], because in Dutch the "dierbaar vaderland" that occurs in the lyrics has neutre gender while the Brabançonne is male. Thus the implied term remains otherwise unclear: the lyrics do not mention Brabant, nor did the original longer lyrics. Compare also with French "Les Brabançons", the Brabantians (the Brabantian people). So the infobox should show for anthem: '"La Brabançonne" (literally: The Brabantian)' or '"Brabançonne" (French, literally: Brabantian)' so as to clearly indicate that translating the name is not done.
The article The Brabançonne has little reason to incorporate the definite article 'The' in its title, simply Brabançonne would be more appropriate: the title obviously does not include the strictly English word "The" in any of the now three official Belgian languages in which official versions of the lyrics exist. Alternatively, the article could be named La Brabançonne, compare with both Marseillaise and The Marseillaise redirecting to the article named La Marseillaise, though in case a (French) definite article is part of the article's title, the introduction sentence should also mention the names in the official Dutch language 'De Brabançonne' and in the official German language 'Die Brabançonne'. With the English definite article 'The', there should even be three translations, another good reason to kick it out of the article title. Also the official .be web site mentions: 'the "Brabançonne"' with the doublequotes indicating a single word name. This web site also mentions it to exist only in French and Dutch, which is not confirmed by our article's "official" German version of the anthem; perhaps the page is not available in German on the .be web site? One can compare the in French rather fixed "La" before the name with e.g. "La Francophonie" which article is named "Francophonie".
Note: The expression in German language is also feminine though words in French and in German do not always have a same gender for identical concepts, in particular the meaning of 'patrie' (fatherland) would in German have caused "Das Brabançonne" but the translation and probably its naming in German came long after the origin of the anthem and one might not have realized what had been intended once or the suggestion of das Vaterland may not have seemed politically wise for the former German territory having become Belgian, though of course die Heimat is feminin again and might not have sounded as incorrect as the more straightforward translation of 'patrie'; standard Dutch 'de', and English 'the', do not give a clear clue as for the gender, but e.g. from dialectical den Brabançonne one knows it to be male to Flemish people.
By the way, the article named 'Brabançonne' on the German-language Wikipedia also wrongly mentions it to mean Das Lied von Brabant (neutre gender) which is rather ludicrous, but no more than wurde der Brabançonne (erroneously male) a bit further on. — SomeHuman 05 Jun2007 00:04 (UTC)

No way it'd become once again la Brabançonne; it should be The Brabançonne or simply Brabançonne, but there is absolutely no reason to use the French article, since, as you say, la Brabançonne is not more official (let alone correct) than de/die Brabançonne. Therefore I prefer the current use, though the translation is indeed not really correct. We could indeed kick the translation out. --Dionysos1 09:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

La Brabançonne is not more official now, but it was the original and once the only official expression. But I fully agree and we should then also drop the definite article from the title: as it can follow whatever language, it is not generally considered a fixed part of the anthem's name. We simply have to apply Wikipedia guidelines on dropping initial definite articles from the encyclopaedical article's title, Brabançonne. The opening paragraph of its own article does not require translations at all then, though in that article it should become mentioned that Brabançonne is French for Brabantian. In the 'Belgium' article, the infobox best maintains The Brabançonne but now without an attempt to translate (interested readers will follow the link). For now, I do not yet start moving the 'The Brabançonne' to 'Brabançonne' as there might still be more reactions coming. — SomeHuman 05 Jun2007 23:29 (UTC)

Dispute

There are mainly five points where User:SomeHuman and I (Vb) do not agree. Could some third person give their opinion about this.

• In the lead, "Another 10% inhabits the officially bilingual Brussels-Capital Region, for approximately 85% using French.[2][3]" the 85% is too controversial 80-85% would be better but I think no number at all would be the best.
• In the lead, I think the sentence "In this enclave within the Flemish Region however, neither language is the primary one for roughly half of the residents.[4][5][6]" belongs elsewhere (as a footnote or in the language section). This point is IMHO too controversial to stand there alone. A compromise has been suggested above.
• The sentence "The country's constitution was revised on 14 July 1993, still based on the earlier determined four language areas (taalgebieden in Dutch, Sprachgebiete in German) or linguistic regions (régions linguistiques in French),[24] to create a unique federal state with competences based on three levels:" is too complicated. ", still based on the earlier determined four language areas (taalgebieden in Dutch, Sprachgebiete in German) or linguistic regions (régions linguistiques in French),[24]" should be put elsewhere.
• The table

Linguistic region	Provisions for			Authority, limited to their respective competences, of
	individuals & organisations expressing themselves			the Communities			the Regions (and their provinces)			the Federal government
	in Dutch	in French	in German	Flemish	French	German- speaking	Flemish	Walloon	Brussels- Capital
Dutch language area	obvious	facilities (12)	no provision	×	-	-	×	-	-	×
French language area	facilities (4)	obvious	facilities (2)	-	×	-	-	×	-	×
Bilingual area Brussels-Capital	obvious	obvious	no provision	×	×	-	-	-	×	×
German language area	no provision	facilities (all 9)	obvious	-	-	×	-	×	-	×
	Facilities exist only in specific municipalities near the borders of the Flemish with the Walloon and with the Brussels-Capital Regions, and in Wallonia also in 2 municipalities bordering its German language area as well as for French-speakers throughout the latter area. The number of municipalities with facilities for speakers of the column's language are given within parenthesis.

should be simplified as suggested above.

• minor quibble: "Historical contributions to the development of science and technology continue through the Belgian era." I don't agree with the wording "Belgian era". I agree with the suggestion by JoJan (see above).

I therefore put the controversial-tag. Vb

I agree that in the lead it should be enough to say that Brussels is officially billingual, the estimated numbers can be mentioned down the article. Also I think the table is too complicated indeed, it could be used in a more specified article, but a simple explanation should satisfy here. As for the lead, what do you think of this:

The Kingdom of Belgium is a country in northwest Europe bordered by the Netherlands, Germany, Luxembourg, France and for a short stretch by the North Sea. It is one of the founding and core members of the European Union, hosting its headquarters, as well as those of many other major international organizations, such as NATO. Belgium has a population of over ten-and-a-half million people, in an area of around 30,000 square kilometres (11,700 square miles), which makes it one of the world's most densely populated countries.

Straddling the cultural boundary between Germanic and Latin Europe, linguistic diversity often leads to political and cultural conflict and is reflected in Belgium's complex system of government and political history.[4][8][9][10] As a federal country, it is divided into three autonomous regions: the Dutch-speaking Flemish Region, the officially billingual Brussels-Capital Region and the French-speaking Walloon Region; in the latter however, there is a small German-speaking Community of about 73,000 people.

Or should we explain the difference between a Community and a Region already in the lead? I don't know how we could say that Dutch-speakers are in the majority without using too controversial numbers. A possibility could maybe be a remake of the following sentence: Although no official figures exist, a 60-40% (+/- 2%) relation is often supposed.--Dionysos1 10:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's do some real work

Vb, stop trying to keep information out of the article at places where it belongs. You and I do not agree mainly on a few layout points: where to put something in the article. I'm getting more than a little annoyed by your trolling behaviour: After having discussed every point, you continue to come back to the same topics without new arguments. More serious trolling occurs when, after all arguments have been properly presented so as to give opportunity to other editors to make suggestions, you restart your usually weakely argumented case (mainly stating that you do not agree or something belongs somewhere without producing logical reasons and without referring to guidelines) in a new section on the talk page. There you present an overly simplified case on which an innocent contributor is likely to react and, not seeing my earlier arguments, to agree. The main result of all this discussion is, that you have prevented me since weeks from doing serious work at the article itself because you keep demanding too much of my precious time, precisely because the FAR is more urgent than whether or not a table should include something or whether the lead should be shorter: it has been shortened considerably and only the important parts are in, you do not agree but the paragraphs in the lead are of an acceptable lenght, factually correct, and referenced, and no longer a cause of worry for the FAR reviewers. There are other matters to further tackle. Those are the priorities. Tagging the article as if there were a content dispute or POV will not help the overly impatient FAR/FA reviewers to grant FA status. So lets stay away from changing what is already satisfying. The one sentence possibly standing in the way of an FA status, will be modified largely as I suggested yesterday (though I personally feel the wording to become more radical and the sentence gets nearly 50% longer, it is correct and more readable in "undoubtedly" proper English. Let's get on with some real work and perhaps one day our disagreements will become solved by another contributor like Dionysos1, but not now: the length of the lead is just right, a shorter lead would cause FA problems: The lead mustnot be dull: neighbour countries, overall population, there are a few languages spoken, politicians of some areas have disputes with some of other areas ... all that goes all over the world for two out of three countries and does not make readers curious to find out the details; the current content does. I'm not going to address your last comments at the end of the multitude of sections that you have started, and hope any readers will not base their judgement on a single section but look for the arguments in other ones as well. A small note in the sections directing people here will do. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 05 Jun2007 15:32 (UTC)

Without going into details, in my opinion the lead is much too long. And it is complicated enough to frighten away any reader who has no idea of the complexity of the Belgian society. All complex situations should only be discussed in a summary manner, while still giving enough information. The in-depth explanation then goes to a special article. For instance, the above table belongs in the article Communities, regions and linguistic regions of Belgium and not in the article Belgium. Such a drastic overhaul would require a lot of work, but in the end it would be in the interest of our readers. JoJan 15:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid your opinion does not match the standards for Featured Article status: I seem to recall such to have been refused much earlier precisely because of the lead not being long enough (amongst other reasons): A good lead is supposed to be a whole section, though not overly long either (which it had become a while ago). The article about Belgium can only deserve FA status by mainly handling the topics for which Belgium is most known: the Walloon/Flemish disputes, Brussels, and thus the lead should suggest there being more in the sections, in which people should find more than what 'everyone' already knows. But you are quite right about a drastic overhaul: in fact even small changes usually require revising content further down (getting links back in somewhere, avoid using identical terms, getting back to what should read as if it were written in one fluent motion, etc). This is not the time for such. And certainly not for suggesting there is a dispute going on: the article content is stable (as much as possible) and must remain so while FA is within reach, see Wikipedia:Featured_article_criteria. Putting the 'dispute'-tag on precisely now, is directly steering for guaranteed failure on FA status — while there is no part of the content upon which there is any serious disagreement, only minor precise wordings, where exactly to put a phrase, and whether some columns should remain in a table have been discussed. Keep an eye on priorities, please. — SomeHuman 05 Jun2007 16:49 (UTC)

PS: I dropped a note at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Belgium. — SomeHuman 05 Jun2007 18:54 (UTC)

PPS: As I mentioned in the relevant sections of the talk page and in edit comments, several of the talk page disputes (unclear 'provisions' in the table, rather awkwardly worded '"undoubtedly wellknown" better multilingualism' phrase) were handled as well as the undisputed Brabançonne modification. — SomeHuman 05 Jun2007 23:53 (UTC)

I don't agree with SomeHuman arguments. I however utterly agree with the comments made by Dyomisos and JoJan. I also agree with the remarks made earlier on by Sijo Ripa. I would like the editors of this article to take this arguments into accounts. I have tried several times to edit the article along those lines and have each time been reverted. Could we try and find a compromise. Vb 09:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You do not agree with my arguments... None of the dozens, eh? You do agree with the people whom I mentioned to be likely to have reacted in the first place on your remark in a new section without referring to the preexisting section on the same topic, in which my arguments occurred. That again and again opening of a new section without bringing any argument besides 'I don't like', is trolling and utter demagogy because an opponent either has to keep repeating all his arguments or has to leave your remark as if agreeing. And you just did it again hereunder by creating the fourth section on that table (apart from one about text on the same topic). When responding on an earlier comment, put your comment at the bottom of the relevant section, please.

I'm rather surprised to see you agree with Sijo Ripa, the person who nominated the article as Featured article removal candidate for several reasons of which none had been contested and thus nothing had prevented bringing it to proper Featured Article status by editing. Sijo Ripo did not comment at the FARC regarding anything in the #Demographics of Brussels talk page section; there his fear was that the specified data would be contested and then by other contributors' edits cause cluttering the lead of (after my earlier downsizing) admitted proper length into a too lengthy introduction. Apparently, delivering several proper sources has prevented such. Contrarily, I am not surprised, because the 2nd anon editor who commented in that section, appears to be you, as I assume by style and by the IP address matching the more than 20 different IP's that you have been using lately — though the anonymus did argument his case.

Anyway, I did appreciate your call "The article is now featured article removal candidate. Could someone do something to prevent this!" and we should keep the article in a stable version, in particular as my call on Wikipedia:Featured article review/Belgium caused at least two reviewers to have another look yesterday and thus we'll better stick to the observed visual presentation and to the lead (apart from one reviewer's suggested edit therein and at start of the History section, which I meanwhile attended to). Let's keep our priorities straight. — SomeHuman 06 Jun2007 18:59 (UTC)

So let me try to discuss your arguments.

• The Belgian era does not exist in the sense it is used in the text. We must get rid of this wording. The JoJan's suggestion is IMHO good. Of course the article is not about the Renaissance in Europe but noone claims this either. Of course the article is about Belgium. Hence I don't understand your argument at all. What I find good in JoJan's wording is that it avoids claiming Belgium (or the southern part of the Low Countries) would be some special case in Europe and put the Belgian case in its correct historical and geographical context.
• I read once again your arguments about the "undoubtedly wellknown" and I think I understood why we do not agree. It is a translation problem. The wording in French "sans doute" means here "probably", "for sure". This is not a claim of the authors this is just meaning: "It is well known that the Flemings speak better foreign languages than Walloons" (well known among the readers, i.e. the Belgians --- they don't claim it is well known worlwide). They say this because what they claim is that the Walloons do know much much less foreign languages than usually assumed. As a conclusion I would simply suppress the words "undoubtedly wellknown" because they are not a claim by the authors and are meaning less to a worldwide leadership.
• I agree with Sijo Ripa in the sense that I believe that less about Brussels in the lead is better in this case. The information presented there is too detailed for the normal international reader. Your argument is that the Belgium artilcle is featured because of what is interesting in Belgium, i.e. the language quibbles. I am not your opinion. I believe Belgium is featured because it is a well-balanced well-referred article about a country. Any article, and a fortiori any country article, is worth getting featured if well-done.
• The table about linguistic regions is much too detailed and IMHO belongs elsewhere or should be much simplified. I doubt anybody who does not know the Belgian political context is able to understand this. Your argument is that one can click on the facilities subarticle. I believe this is a wrong policy. This article is much too detailed for the reader of a general article like Belgium.
• The first sentence in Communities and Regions should refrain to refer to linguistic regions (and a fortiori to the translations of the term in Dutch, German and French). This repell any general reader to read further. Of course this info is relevant and worth mentioning but elsewhere in the section.

Vb 07:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)~

You keep hammering on the same nails but bring no new aspects into the discussion:

• "The Belgian era does not exist in the sense it is used in the text". What "sense" would that be then? It is simply used, separating the historical pre-Belgian time of the Low Countries from the time during which the country is known as Belgium, and the following sentences clearly elaborate on that so it cannot possibly be misunderstood, provided one knows the meaning of the word 'era' in English. You must have used a most abridged dictionary if you would have found the term to necessarily mean a very specific and meanwhile closed period. In the history of the relevant geographical parts and its people, the Belgian era started when Belgium came to be and until further notice it still continues.
• "Ce qui est sans doute un fait bien connu", literally "which is 1. without doubt 2. a fact 3. wellknown", hence "without doubt a wellknown fact", shortly (and slightly less strong which is proper because in English one tends to use a more compact phrasing than the rather common redundancy in French) "undoubtedly wellknown". "Bien connu" here or anywhere else does not mean "probably" as you claim; the adverb "surely" is a wording similar to "doubtlessly", but contrarily to "sans doute" and "doubtlessly", the French "biensur" or English "surely" are mainly used in front of a statement that relativates a general assumption, whereas the survey report states the proven fact to be more considerable than already assumed, hence the wording in French and its proper translation in English.
  The importance of this statement and the report cannot be overemphasized as it comes from the authors of the most highly reputed French-speaking university in Belgium. That's why the name of the university does not suffice for often unilingual English-speaking readers who may not be aware of its name being French and not Dutch or of its reputation in Belgium. The descriptive indication of the university is clear and may make the more interested readers curious to read the linked article, which is an asset because it explains the university's sheer existence at the present location to be the result of one of the strongest language battles in Belgian history, quite relevant to this section in the article Belgium and even more so in this paragraph on learned languages as it was a battle about usage of languages in education. Your oversimplification falsifies the importance expressed in the strongly formulated short introduction of the survey report — in particular unacceptable because deeper in the report's text, its authors show a nearly ridiculous pro-French language bias by emphasizing "It's important to notice French (as primary or learned language) to be spoken by more people than Dutch is" ["Il importe de remarquer que le français (maternel ou acquis) est parlé par un nombre plus grand de personnes que le néerlandais."] where such is the clear result precisely of the report's conclusion: an aboninably low percentage of native speakers of French that are able to speak Dutch and the considerably (more than 3 times) better situation amongst native speakers of Dutch. [In case Walloons would only improve their knowledge of Dutch to the level for French nowadays amongst Flemish people, then it would be twice (2.5x) as "important to notice" that Dutch (then 88.5% versus French remaining at 75%) would be more spoken than French (75% versus Dutch now 70%) in the sense of that biased phrase, Belgians able to speak as is very clear from context.
  Your "they don't claim it is well known worlwide"(sic): neither do I nor does the article text suggest that: it says it's a claim in the report of a survey and it is as clear to the reader as to you or me that this is a Belgian survey, though the authors never express where the geographical limits of the 'doublessly wellknown' aspect would lie. Do you not know the possible difference between "wellknown" and "known worldwide", or do you assume our readers to be functionally illiterate?
• "The information presented there is too detailed for the normal international reader." It appears you and few others do not want 'normal international readers' to become informed. The importance of the information in the context of the article Belgium is clear and I argumented that far more extensively than what you attribute to be my argument: on 2007-05-09 03:43 (UTC), 2007-05-21 16:32-17:09 (UTC) (and my follow-up on your reply, on 2007-05-25 05:39 (UTC) and 2007-05-25 08:10 (UTC)). Your 'argument' was an accusation of POV-pushing as if it were out-of-context, while in fact it is precisely in context and most relevant to and necessary for the paragraph explaining 'linguistical diversity' to be so important in Belgian history and politics, which by itself is not a POV but a fact as shown by references (better read the comprehensive sources clearly proving this). Like your point above this one, you want to keep information you do not like 'international readers' to be aware of, out of the article or shuffle it deep down where it is not likely to be read by that many.
• Once again, you express no argument but merely your "humble opinion" about the table being too complicated, ununderstandable, and thus again assume functional illiteracy of readers, or in fact you find the table too informative ("should be much simplified" and you had already shown that to mean leaving out the entire part you do not like). My argument is once again not just what you claim it to be: that argument addressed only one aspect of your particular assumption about 'facilities' as part of the table, and you did not deliver any argument for weeding those out entirely.
• Over and over again you express your only concern to be shuffling even admittedly relevant and notable information (your words: "Of course this info is relevant and worth mentioning") out of sight and hopefully not seen by most readers — like anything that offers information relating to the conflicts between French-speakers and Dutch-speakers in Belgium, however relevant and important it may be in general and even from your point of view. I write an article from an NPOV attitude, which does not mean hiding the ackowledgedly important facts that might cause readers to understand, or even support, points of view on relevant topics. Doing so would indeed make a dull article which would repell a reader much sooner, and an article far from NPOV, for both reasons not deserving Featured Article status. I do not care as much for the recognition of status, but mainly for the essential qualities of an article, and hope both to coincide.

— SomeHuman 11 Jun2007 11:18 (UTC)

• Belgian era: The text states Belgian era and then speaks about Mercator and Vesalius which do not belong to any Belgian era (if there exists any).
• The text presents the survey as if one of the conclusions of the survey were: "the multiligualism of Flanders is undoubtedly well known". It is not one result of the survey. The conclusion of the survey is that "the multilingualism in Flanders is considerable compared to Wallonnia". This is different! The "undoubtedly wellknown" is not a result of the survey it is just a remark for the common Belgian reader which should not interest the international one.
• The intersted readers are not stupid. They just don't want to be hammered by too detailed and specific infos in the introduction of basic things! This is really just a question of style. NOT of POV! Vb 12:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Stop trolling and edit-warring: you apparently want to make this article lose FA status to avoid it being read for proper information which is very decently referenced and correctly translated as I showed and as anyone can verify by the French quote in the footnote. Your edit comment calling it a wrong translation is false but your replacer "translation" is not only very poor and hiding the for your by now most obvious POV undesired information, it was also false, e.g. "foreign languages are much better known in Flanders": French a foreign language in Flanders? Compared to Dutch in Wallonia. Uh! That is the most separatist POV I've seen in an article so far, both languages remain native to Belgium! Apparently you are functionally illiterate as to the Belgian era sentence and to what I earlier explained at lenght: you clearly can't get it into your skull that there are two eras: the Lowlandic one and the Belgian one. The first had Vesalius etc, the latter Sax etc. "Significant in an increasingly globalizing epoch" is not POV but (besides being rather stylish) explains the reason why the survey (and many other studies) pay attention to an age under forty: this is the obvious future basis, in this case: whether (nearly) retired people speak 3 (or more) languages will not matter much for Belgium's or its regions' future economical development. And as the figures do not show the Walloons to have commenced to come closer to the Flemish, that significance will be clear. But the actual conclusion is left to the reader, perhaps they could think it might not be a handicap for the Walloons and hence for Belgium. I'm not indicating which POV (however obvious and generally accepted or unlikely it might be) readers should adhere to.
For all clarity, let me quote a small part from the report's section '2. Et le futur ?': "Près de 60 pour cent des jeunes en Flandre connaissent le français, le néerlandais et l’anglais, contre 10 pour cent en Wallonie. La Wallonie est par conséquent en défaut sur deux points. Les Wallons n’apprennent pas la langue de la majorité des belges, et ils n’apprennent pas non plus l’anglais, qui pour de bonnes ou de moins bonnes raisons, est devenue la première langue internationale." and "il ne faut pas se cacher que l’essentiel est de changer les mentalités, encore que celles-ci puissent être partiellement rationalisées par un raisonnement de nature économique.". Besides pointing at the language of the majority of Belgians and that majority's economical supremacy (referring to the 'Marshal plan for Wallonia', recently promoted by Elio di Rupo), the authors point at economical consequences of not knowing the primary international language; they also express to rather expect the figures in the future to remain at the level of the under 40-year olds. My by you contested 6-words "POV" phrasing merely summarizes what gets much more attention in the university report (not just the survey's cold figures, but what the specialized scolars find clearly notable). I urge you to verify the provided sources before removing material with edit comment "rm some POV statement".
The relevance of German as lesser known than French, Dutch and English and such in each region, is perhaps a trifle arguable, but not very successfully for the article on a country that has it as its third official language after having mentioned English which is not an official language there. — SomeHuman 11 Jun2007 13:35 (UTC)

I am not trolling around. I just want to reach a compromise. There are not any Lowlandig or Belgian eras! You invented the concepts! In Wallonia, I have learned Dutch as "2ème Langue Etrangère" i.e. 2nd Foreign Language. This is an official term there is not any POV there but I understand your remark and have proposed a change into "non mother tongue language". Vb 18:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not invent those concepts, and I'm not going to prove it by even more references: you do not want to understand the term 'era', its a simple word, rather a synonym of 'period in history, though not very short like an episode'; the use of the word era is not restricted to some highly coined terms with an article title on Wikipedia containing the word 'era'. Of course there was a Lowlandic era (having several shorter eras, but those are for a series of History articles, not for a simple sentence in a 'Science and technology' section) and there was or rather still is a Belgian era. By the way, "non mother tongue language" [especially as used in your phrase] does not immediately suggest your première langue étrangère to have been English. Stop edit warring, you really do not have good arguments and you do not show any of my arguments to be invalid either; part of the problem (besides a clear POV) is a lack of feeling for English, which can make reading some of the prose and a table rather difficult for you. If there is a way of writing English in a really decent style while being clear and short, I'd prefer that; but without oversimplifying articles or by refraining from using words one might not be familiar with, hence repeated near-childish terms plastered all along an article. — SomeHuman 11 Jun2007 20:22–20:51 (UTC)

New version of the linguistic region table

Dear SomeHuman,

I think the new version of the table is more difficult to understand than before.

Linguistic region	Authorities rendering services in the language of			Authority, limited to their respective competences, of
	individuals & organisations expressing themselves			the Communities			the Regions (and their provinces)			the Federal government
	in Dutch	in French	in German	Flemish	French	German- speaking	Flemish	Walloon	Brussels- Capital
Dutch language area	obviously	facilities (12)	no provision	×	-	-	×	-	-	×
French language area	facilities (4)	obviously	facilities (2)	-	×	-	-	×	-	×
Bilingual area Brussels-Capital	obviously	obviously	no provision	×	×	-	-	-	×	×
German language area	no provision	facilities (all 9)	obviously	-	-	×	-	×	-	×
	Facilities exist only in specific municipalities near the borders of the Flemish with the Walloon and with the Brussels-Capital Regions, and in Wallonia also in 2 municipalities bordering its German language area as well as for French-speakers throughout the latter area. The number of municipalities with facilities for speakers of the column's language are given within parenthesis.

Vb 10:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)~

Given that "facilities" in English is widely used to refer to "Toilets" it's actually rather funny. :) DrKiernan 08:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

That thought had crossed my mind as well ;-) — But fortunately, in English the term still retains its general original meaning and the terms in Dutch, French, and German all have 'facilit...' or 'Facilit...' and thus always became translated to 'facilities'. The latest version of the relevant section also shows a "See also: Municipalities with language facilities" at top, thus the reader will now be aware of the kind of facilities that is intended. The latest version of the table is:

	Official services rendered in the language of			Areas where the institutions for 3 groups of matters exercise power
	individuals & organisations expressing themselves			the Communities			the Regions (and their provinces)			the Federal State
	in Dutch	in French	in German	Flemish	French	German- speaking	Flemish	Walloon	Brussels- Capital
Dutch language area	yes	facilities (12)	not required	×	-	-	×	-	-	×
French language area	facilities (4)	yes	facilities (2)	-	×	-	-	×	-	×
Bilingual area Brussels-Capital	yes	yes	not required	×	×	-	-	-	×	×
German language area	not required	facilities (all 9)	yes	-	-	×	-	×	-	×
	Within parentheses: number of municipalities with special status, i.e. required to offer facilities for speakers of the column's language. Facilities exist only in specific municipalities near the borders of the Flemish with the Walloon and with the Brussels-Capital Regions, and in Wallonia also in 2 municipalities bordering its German language area as well as for French-speakers throughout the latter area.

The index [n?] underneath 'Flemish' leads to the Footnotes section where is shown:

n?.

Footnote: The Constitution set out seven institutions each of which can have a parliament, government and administration. In fact there are only six such bodies because the Flemish Region merged into the Flemish Community. This single Flemish body thus exercises powers about Community matters in the bilingual area of Brussels-Capital and in the Dutch language area, and about Regional matters only in the latter.

— SomeHuman 11 Aug2007 11:58–22:32 (UTC)

History

I don't understand why this new paragraph:

The 1830 Belgian Revolution led to the establishment of an independent, Catholic and neutral Belgium under a provisional government and a national congress. Since the installation of Leopold I as king in 1831, Belgium has been a constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy. Initially an oligarchy characterized mainly by the Catholic Party and the Liberals, by World War II the country had evolved towards universal suffrage, the Labour Party had risen, and trade unions already played a strong role. French as single official language and adopted by the nobility and the bourgeoisie, had lost its overall importance as Dutch had become recognized as well, but only in 1967 an official Dutch version of the Constitution was accepted.

would be an improvement. I therefore restrored the preceding one which was the story of a long compromise between the editors. I think the new one is a bit POVed Vb 08:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)~

I don't see why the two versions of that paragraph would be different in POV or NPOV terms. But I do see from other edits and trolling comments on the talk page, that you try to call my edits POV and thus find a way to continue elimitation or hiding far away of anything you have a by now clearly POV allergy against. Where is the story (fairy-tale?) of a compromise? If there is a discussion archived, please tell where and wherein that might show my version controversial. — SomeHuman 11 Jun2007 13:46 (UTC)

Please assume good faith! I think the new phrasing is much more complicated. The meaning of several sentences have been concatenated in only one. It is difficult here to understand the historical evolution because every element is squashed together. The last sentence is IMHO a clear flemish POV. Vb 18:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You simply hate objective statements that do not amplify your POV. I just inserted a clarification in my today's reply a bit higher. I had prepared it, including my last remark "I urge you...". The latter counts once again for your remark here. Read the sources, not only the one by no less than the United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, but also the relevant ones under general online sources (which until my edit had served for the entire history section) e.g. the one from the KMLA - hardly to be accused of Flemish POV. And your latest edit comment "rv; Let's start an edit war" does not let me assume good faith but confirms my suspicion of your deliberate sabotage of possible Feature Article status (see my intro comment of this talk page section '#Let's do some real work' and the one of 2007-06-05 18:54 (UTC)). You are an anon troll abusing 'content discussion' (which I already had shown to be little of a discussion by lack of proper arguments on your part, merely 'IMHO this is POV' is once again not content discussion) to even vandalize an article by removing all valuable elements not confirming your highly biased radical POV. — SomeHuman 11 Jun2007 19:49 (UTC)

P.S. There is always the full article on History of Belgium. That section here is very lengthy and thus either information has to be kicked out (I did not do that for it has not been proposed nor has the section been criticized for it at FA, I assume the same section may have existed when the article got FA status earlier: it did not appear to have style changes indicating later elaborations) or it must have a compact phrasing, which unfortunately does require certain skills in English grammar at the readers' side as well. — SomeHuman 11 Jun2007 20:53 (UTC)

PPS: Your edit comment on reverting my edit of the relevant paragraph, "restore preceding paragraph; I don't see any improvement)", see:
2007-06-08T22:55:04 SomeHuman (→History - 3rd paragraph: compact, style relates 2 last sentences + avoid arguably phrased bilingual status (having been suggested by Flemish for the entire country, refused by French-speakers)) — See: [3], "the country" does not have nor had "a bilingual Dutch-French system", only the Brussels-Capital Region. — SomeHuman 11 Jun2007 21:54 (UTC)

The system is bilingual (or even tri-lingual). At least seen from outside. The country has three official languages used in common at the federal level of government. The Brussels Capital Region is officially utterly bilingual. Of course each region is unilingual but seen from outside the country is clearly bilingual. This is clearly explained in the Demogaphics, Politics and Regions and Communities sections. In history, this is just simply stated. Pay attention not to destroy sentences and formulations which were already checked by the reviewers and editors of the second featuring process of this article. Vb 07:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit war Vb/SomeHuman

Both of us Vb and SomeHuman have exchanged our POV and do not find any agreement on the points listed above. I don't want to explain my arguments further and it seems SomeHuman does not want either. I am waiting for comments of other editors. Until that I shall reverse any of SomeHuman editing to the page. As the editor who managed to get this article featured I don't really stand the repeated insults and misbehaviours of SomeHuman. Vb 06:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Then leave the text as improved and presented at the FAR. Most of my edits are results of comments e.g. at the FARC/FAR and I did what I could to improve texts for style, accuracy and understandability. For every edit I delivered proper arguments as edit comment and often here in the talk page. I also delivered numerous references, most certainly very decent ones for anything that just might be controversial. The copyedit asked at FAR should get a view on this and not on a version in which Vb unilaterally decides to get rid of all that cannot confirm Vb's personal viewpoint. His reverts of texts are continuously full reverts to either an old and highly inadequate paragraph, or to his own POV revision that fails to show what most exemplary references pay a great deal of attention to. Vb never gave arguments either on why my text would not be correct and appropriate, nor on merits of what Vb made of it; Vb only makes remarks as 'too detailed', 'POV', but never why or what would make it POV., it's always 'IMHO it is this, IMHO it is that without bringing logical arguments, and never even attempting to show where or why my properly presented arguments would be incorrect.

- Vb: I don't agree / I don't agree with putting it within the lead. I think this is POV! Only once an argumentation was brough forward: stating that "the thesis of many flemish nationalists is that Brussels stands as a multi-cultural Flemish city" (A well-referenced fact: 56% immigrated from foreign countries or are 2nd generation), also mentioning the simple and undeniable fact, and most relevant to both Brussels and Belgium, of the Brussels-Capital Region being an enclave in the Flemish Region would be, according to Vb, a geographic argument of Flemish nationalists. (It happens to be the compromise between French and Dutch speakers as came to be, this is Belgium. The terms 'enclave in' means 'not a part of' and thus definitely not a Flemish city) The majority of the people in Brussels speaking French, is a favorite argument of French-speaking radicals, but it cannot be denied to be equally correct and relevant as the geographical situation, and both are mentioned in the same paragraph of which the purpose is and always was, to demonstrate the complexity of the Belgian linguistic situation.

- Vb: I really do not understand what the table has here to do! Nobody understand the word "facilities" outside of Belgium. We really don't need that amount of details and I still think the table is not clear. The words facility, provision and obvious must be explained in order to make the table understandable by foreigners. This would however lead to a too deep detailed description of the Belgian federal system. Could this be too difficult for outsiders and too detailed because the table shows 9 municipalites in the German-speaking Community and 12 in the Flemish offering 'facilities' for French-speakers, and only 6 in the French Community for German and Dutch together? I do not draw any attention to such and I do not assume many readers to do the arithmatic.

- Vb's section #Fisrt paragraph of the section Communities and Regions on this talk page

• Vb's intellectual honesty is in jeopardy as Vb admits what a 2006 report by a university states, Vb's word : "It is well known that the Flemings speak better foreign languages than Walloons" (well known among the readers, i.e. the Belgians --- they don't claim it is well known worlwide). They say this because what they claim is that the Walloons do know much much less foreign languages than usually assumed." Thus Vb indeed understands that the authors take it that everyone in Belgium knows the Flemish to speak more languages, but keeps modifying the paragraph [4] to a version that elimitates that most prominent statement by the authors, hence Vb's text states that the 2006 survey showed a better knowledge of languages, as if one had not yet realized this before, an accident de parcours one will soon remedy. The truth is that the authors point out that it was undoubtedly wellknown and the survey proved the difference to be considerable. This is a blaim on the French-speakers and the authors do express that (but my rendering of the report in the article does not), and thus Vb again pushes his POV as far as to falsify the authors' conclusion and comment [highly visible as it forms the report's short presentation] of the most renown university in the French Community in Belgium. And the latter for such matter most relevant fact too, Vb camouflages by insisting on simply putting the name of the university which will be utterly unrevealing for the large majority of readers who may well assume an anti-French bias from a Flemish university: many speakers of English cannot recognize it as a French name. And for Vb's POV, the innocent sentence about the third official language in Belgium must disappear: even with the German-speaking Community inside the Walloon Region, that region as a whole does not show higher levels of German being spoken and thus its French-speakers do not better in that language than for the already mentioned ones (this too is not pointed out in my text, though this too is pointed out by the authors of the report).
• Vb keeps reverting [5] to a version of a paragraph in the History section, that depicts Belgium falsely: "The country has since developed a bilingual Dutch-French system". The bilingual area of Brussels-Capital is bilingual, the rest of the country is unilingual, though there are several languages according to the geographical locations, and even in such misinterpreted meaning of 'bilingual' the statement is false: there are not two but three languages at equal footage. That same paragraph in Vb's version includes a typical francophone POV: "Originally, French, which was the adopted language of the nobility and the bourgeoisie, was the official language." This states that when Belgium became independent, the nobility and the bourgeoisie of Belgium was already French-speaking. That was the case for the nobility since centuries, but the bourgeoisie was not yet predominantly French-speaking: even in Brussels, 90% of the notary documents between 1740-1780 on property sales (before the 1795 French occupation and annexation and 1815 (re)United Kingdom of the Netherlands of what became Belgium in 1830) are in Dutch language (Hasquin, Hervé, 1979 see ref De Ridder, Paul). As property was an asset mainly of 'bourgeois' and not of 'the plebs', it is clear that even in Brussels the bourgeoisie was not in the least so francophone as it became all over the country during the first century of Belgium's existence. Once again, my text does not point out such, it simply corrects both false statements: (after mentioning "by World War II") "French as single official language and adopted by the nobility and the bourgeoisie, had lost its overall importance as Dutch had become recognized as well" - not POV, accurate, shorter. Obviously, for Vb it must remain POV even at the cost of documented truth.

There is no content dispute here, just one contributor unilaterally deciding this article must follow a most radical personal pride and conviction that violates the required NPOV.
— SomeHuman 12 Jun2007 17:09 (UTC)

Oh yes. There is content dispute. The position and emphase of the different aspect of the history/politics of Belgium belong utterly to the content of this article. A biased description of the country leads directly to a non NPOV! Vb 84.175.236.153 07:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The Ginsburgh-Weber report was highly noticed as now also for your sake more explicitly expressed in the Taalunie footnote (Le Soir, Algemeen Dagblad) and noted by other notable scholars and, as I pointed out by the 'significantly'-phrase, economically important (see Weber and Schoors: professors in Economics) and from the new Schoors reference I point you at the poor knowledge of English in Wallonia and its importance for the future "in een markt met externe effecten" in a market with external effects. Thus (less cryptically) 'economically significant in an increasingly globalizing epoch'. So forget about POV and other improper tagging: the world sees what I always explained, even the Belgian French POV solutions suggested in the report are criticized, like I already had shown in an earlier comment before knowing about the Schoors reaction: the report is honest in its figures but shows a rather ridiculous POV.— SomeHuman 14 Jun2007 19:37 (UTC)

The numbers are facts. Opinions are just opinions and do not belong here. In particular when they are offensing for 40% of the Belgian population! Vb 06:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Uncontested and relevant "opinions" by renowned experts in the field, that have been published and then quoted in important popular media and commented on by other renowned experts — all these aspects well-referenced, regardless whether such "opinions" are flattering, do belong here: such is WP:NPOV. You just admit your unacceptable POV: For you, anything that might be offensive for French-speaking people or culture absolutely and scrutinously must be weeded out of the article: even with an expert biased towards, and the original Belgian top-university publisher connected with, the French Community. My phrasing is already a low-key rendering limited to the most relevant elements that were given a lot of attention and stronger wording by the experts. — SomeHuman 15 Jun2007 10:26 (UTC)

2nd Paragraph of the lead

I utterly agree with Maskell : The second paragraph is a monster. This was not all the time so: it went down the hill since SomeHuman edited it and accused any editor willing to improve this of functional illiteracy. Most details about Brussels and exact numbers should be removed. As Dyonisos said we need only the numbers 60%/40% (+/-2%) for describing the ratio Dutch-/French-speaking. Vb 12:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggest the following ersatz:

Straddling the cultural boundary between Germanic and Latin Europe, Belgium is linguistically divided. Approximatively 60% of the population speaks Dutch while about 40% speaks French. A small minority in the German-speaking community along the German border speaks German. Most Dutch-speakers lives in Flanders, in the north, while most French-speakers lives in Wallonia, in the south, and in the officialy bilingual Brussels-Capital Region at the centre of the country.<ref>Footnote: The exact numbers of Belgians speaking which language is a controversial issue because there is not any official census on the usage of languages in Belgium. Moreover the number of non Belgian residents in Brussels rose recently dramatically. This has made the estimations even more difficult. See the languages and communities and regions sections for more details.</ref>

Please don't hesitate to suggest any modification. Vb 13:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Done, a bit shorter and easier to read with a nice balance between the necessary and referenced 'enclave' and the 'nearby' Wallonia, which I must gladly agree to be equally important — but without a personal footnote that is not based on provided references: the controversy about this paragraph is between you and the references, all estimates of 80 or 85 or 90 are approximately 85 percent. — SomeHuman 14 Jun2007 19:38 (UTC)

This nice balance is simply some non NPOV that you want to push against other editors. Vb 06:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The reason why Marskell said this par is a monster is that this par is much too detailed for a lead section. We need here to refer to the article section and not to that many references. The enclave status of Brussels is evident. Look at a map!Vb 07:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The FAR reviewer Marskell called the 2nd paragraph 'a monster', without saying why: perhaps too detailed (which is why I left out the longer formulation about 56% immigrants), perhaps too hard to read (which I addressed by leaving that too detailed part out, allowing a considerably more clear phrasing). It has become a short paragraph (much shorter than the next in the lead). People do not have to look at maps inside articles before reading the lead, the borders of Belgium are equally evident by the map but still take a much more lengthy phrase in the opening paragraph. But I guess the borders are not what you erroneously consider to be 'POV'. It is hard to push non NPOV: that would be to push POV, and apparently, you fail to convince anyone what POV that would be. Your comment, immediately following mine stating the balance between Brussels being an enclave in the Flemish Region and being near to the Walloon Region (a clear NPOV by showing both relevant Communities' viewpoints on connection with Brussels - which for Community competences actually falls under both Communities), once again demonstrates your incorrect assertion that WP:NPOV is POV in case it just might deflect from pure French-speakers' POV. — SomeHuman 15 Jun2007 10:50 (UTC)

It's monstrous because:

a) The ref formatting makes editing incredibly laborious; I see this is an issue for most of the copy.

b) It's POV. Bizarrely, it properly introduces Flanders but does not properly introduce Wallonia. The second sentence should read something like the following "The two principal regions of Belgium are Dutch-speaking Flanders, with 55% of the Belgian population, and French-speaking Wallonia, which accomodates 33% of the people."

c) The phraseology is strange (see note below). Marskell 17:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, d) "...of which approximately 85% often as a secondary language mainly uses French in public" is indecipherable and probably over-specific for a lead, whatever it means. --Marskell 17:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I think it's better. The 85% ought to be removed entirely, IMO, and placed in demographics. Using four or five references for facts should be avoided, unless there's some pressing need for them. Marskell 18:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not quite agree but... We'd better come to POV much later, when you appear to have finished copediting as an outsider. You should at least for now remain in that position.

As my latest edit comment states, from a pragmatic outsider's viewpoint (and the number of recent immigrants in Brussels cause many of the inhabitants to be outsiders as to the French/Dutch political discussion), the references do allow this formulation: "The nearby Brussels-Capital Region is an officially bilingual enclave within Flanders; with 56% of the Capital Region's residents being of recent foreign descent, and most others speaking French, this language is locally a de facto lingua franca." — "85% speak French", without precise specifics, was wrong: up to 99% can speak some French (be it hardly more than 'oui, merci' for some; 95% will manage enchanté mademoiselle), less than 50% are native speakers (in 2005, the numbers were different in 1999). The 85% did correspond to the number of people being able to express themselves in French (and assumed to mainly do so at least outside their family or community of a foreign country), except the inhabitants with Dutch as primary language. There has not been a study about how often an average Dutch-speaker actually uses French or Dutch at home (e.g. mixed marriage) or outside, while in Brussels. An outsider may not put as much attention to the precise usage of official Belgian languages within the Capital Region. I am afraid however, that my newest formulation could trigger Flemish opposition, as both the Flemish minority in bilingual Brussels and the Flemish commuters and visitors have the full right to expect to be addressed in Dutch. In practice, apart from official usage, a French-speaker stands a better chance in the officially unilingual Flemish Region (which experience is corroborated by the references about knowledge of languages in the regions). That's a major cause of the sensitivity for language affairs. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 16 Jun2007 00:35–04:25 (UTC)

PS: A shorter variant might be e.g. "The residents of a nearby enclave within Flanders, the officially bilingual Brussels-Capital Region, are for 56% of recent foreign descent and most others speak French, locally a de facto lingua franca."
I assume this (or similar formulation) can help avoiding a monstrosity while being accurate. (Perhaps missed amongst the references: a 'see also' General online references: Janssens, Rudy). — SomeHuman 16 Jun2007 04:48 (UTC)

All of which underscores that the sentence does not belong in the lead at all. The intro is not the place for difficult to parse statistics. Marskell 06:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It is quite funny but I utterly agree with Marskell. The words "enclave" and "used in public" do not belong to the lead. They belong of the usual Flemish argumentation on the status of Brussels. This argumentation is defendable but does not belong to the lead. Vb 07:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Marskell cut out the phrase about 'used in public'. The 2nd paragraph of the lead no longer depicts the intricacies of language majorities within a region, and thus does not as well indicate why such complex system of government was developed. That simplification appears fine (as long as the last sentence about complexity does not directly refer to what preceeds), the more because not all aspects can come into the lead anyway. Hence, no suggestions about percentages of languages being spoken anywhere (and no need for a number of people in the German-speaking Community, they are simply comprised in the figure for the Walloon Region - mentioning it could for an uncareful reader be confusing as if Belgium would have a population of more than one hundred percent).

What does remain is: 1. all three official languages (aka all three standard languages of all native dialects in Belgium); 2. where these are official [disregarding the minor 'facilities'] (and thus indirectly the four language areas); 3. all three regions (simple: no mutual overlaps); 4. the percentage of the population of each region (precisely known); 5. the relative geographical positions of the regions — So one mustnot cut out any part of one of these five types of information, crippling the paragraph.
The nice part is that the initial subphrase indicates the major cultural communities (the true ones, not the institutional), and further on the third community (by the institutional name which coincides with the simplest description of the true one).

— SomeHuman 19 Jun2007 01:56 (UTC)

Copyediting

I'm willing to copyedit this per the FAR but that may be pointless if revert warring over-top of things is going to introduce new problems. Or bad new copy. "accommodates 58% of the population." The simple "has 58%" was perfectly fine. "An enclave therein is the..." Oh God, please find a way to get rid of "therein".

And now we have the dispute tags and whatnot thrown into the page. So, I dunno. Do we remove FA status until this settles down? Marskell 13:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I can't see how the tags and the star can co-exist. I feel sorry for those who have put in alot of effort to it.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Strongly oppose: One editor who abuses the article for his own proven POV and sabotages the hard work of others despite dozens of attempts to bring Vb to reason, as I already explained above only to push a highly radical personal POV (though putting in POV tags on my edits in which the weakest possible formulations that NPOV can allow are, often after several adjustments, present). If this one-person series of actions after my explaining about jeopardizing FA, would be able to remove FA, then WP becomes an absolute slave of a POV-pusher and cannot maintain NPOV. One person deliberately causing such FA failing, would be a most powerful vandal, more vandalizing than all blatant vandals can obtain together.

Marskell, a country "has a population" of 10,500,000 million; a region "has 58%" (of the population), does mean "has a group of people that constitutes 58 percent" of the population. In other words, "the region has people"; to me, "the people have a region" which as an institution provides the necessitary services for the people. That is indeed the meaning of "The region accomodates 58% of the population". The phrasing is not just mine, I found several such wordings before changing it. Your copyediting is most highly appreciated, though this does not make you an absolute monarch whose authority mustnot be questioned. I also undid two more of your contributions, I know to be well intended (and I even truly appreciated the "Despite its present bifurcation", but it is immediatelaly followed with " The Mosan art, the Early Netherlandish, the Flemish Renaissance and Baroque painting, major examples of Romanesque, Gothic, Renaissance and Baroque architecture, and the Renaissance vocal music of the Franco-Flemish School developed in the southern part of the Low Countries" — showing the 'bifurcation' to have a historical background for centuries, with very few exceptions (Baroque and partially Gothic though e.g. Brabantine Gothic was no exception), which makes 'Despite' impossible. Of course I appreciate your further good work as you by now already did for the COBRA movement. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 15 Jun2007 17:25 (UTC)

As regards POV-pushing, I'm working on the assumption the Vb would say the exact same of your edits; a disinterested observer oughtn't choose between editors as such, but judge the copy as it stands. As noted, your second paragraph was clearly POV. Re "has", I think you're over-analyzing. Always use the simplest word available, but avoid repetition.

I also have no intention of being an absolute monarch on copyediting. But there is some phrasing in this article that makes for difficult reading and needs going over by someone previously unfamiliar with it. In culture, which I just worked on and hopefully improved, specifics on three separate arts were shoved into one sentence. I have no problem with tweaks after an edit is made, of course. Marskell 19:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I take your point on holding a page to ransom, though there have been alot of concerns expressed before this point and it appears to be the icing on the cake. I started reading at one point and may weigh in again soon though I am the best copyeditor in the world - I don't want to dob User:Circeus in but....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Can't make it out

Here's a doozy:

"Nevertheless, symbolically and materially the Roman Catholic Church stays in a favourable position, and the concept of 'recognized religion' caused a tedious path for Islam to become at the level of Jewish and Protestant religions, other minority religions such as Buddhism do not yet have such status." Marskell 09:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Symbolically: in several ways, for instance the yearly Te Deum at which the royalty and the government (even as this was formed by Liberals and Socialists) attends Catholic Mass, broadcast on the official regional television channels.

Materially: one should realize what it means to be an officially 'recognized religion' in Belgium: besides some financing via religious institutions of church buildings, the clergyman (or -woman if such would be the case, as far as the law is concerned) receive full wages (and pensions afterwards) as officials, financed by the taxpayer; unlike in some countries, the taxpayer has no say about which religion, if any, would be preferred; hence Buddhists support mainly Catholic priests and maintenance of churches by paying their taxes and still need to financially support Buddhists monks and temples privately. In the case of Islam, the forming of religious institutions (also necessary to identify the clergy) and their becoming recognized as to correctly represent the entire Islam community (which proved less obvious in a non-hierarchically organized religion since the financing system was built with the Catholic structures in mind), has caused many years of delay. Islam is well-represented amongst Belgian residents, for smaller communities the long path to go, may be an even more difficult one; nevertheless, the first step was recently taken for Buddhism.

The 'Belgium' article should not explain what I did here above (though it would be practical if there were a linked relevant specific article under 'recognized religion') but needs to indicate the de facto highly unequal treating of religions by an official design for recognition, in a country that has constitutional freedom of religion or philosophical conviction, and the article should name the relevant religions while at least mentioning the existence of a Belgian concept of 'recognized religion'. The sentence does not (need to) further elaborate: simply indicating the 'favourable position' not only symbolically but also materially, should suffice. And such is properly referenced. The only, be it not very substantial, part lacking in this sentence, is that also Humanism as (if) a secular "religion" has an organization and was recognized: elsewhere, the 'Belgium' article already gives sufficient attention to Freethought versus Catholic aspects. Naming Humanism under a title 'Religion' tends to cause heavy debates.

— SomeHuman 17 Jun2007 10:12 (UTC)

Buddhism is a recognised religion, it was recognised earlier this year if I recall correctly. The Buddhist Union of Belgium needs to organise itself first now, and if that's done they can get financial support starting in 2008. It is the eighth recognised religion in Belgium. --Ganchelkas 10:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Precisely, the first step was taken. Trying to "organize" a traditionally utterly unorganized religion without history of representative institutions, but with several strains, is what caused Islam's path to be so tedious: Buddhism may experience the same. The problem is caused by cultural differences between habits of strictly organized systems with a clear hierarchy, most suitable for Catholicism, and elsewhere a more de facto acceptance of mutually unorganized monasteries and clergy, supported (financially, food donations) directly by their adherers. But Buddhists have to pay taxes the moment they arrive in Belgium and converting to Buddhism does not give the right on a tax reduction either. Should Buddhist monks walk with their alm bowls towards City Hall around six in the morning to receive their daily food? Hence the demands set in Belgium cause a change of lifestyle and mindset, jeopardizing the authenticity and traditions of a religion. Buddhists have no mass, a fixed time for the community to gather, but at each visit to a monk, one brings food and money, also when the community gathers for a festivity at the monastery at which volunteers work together. Either that disappears, leaving no community, or it continues and causes double financing (whether of Buddhism twice if recognized, or of Buddhism and a non-adhered religion till then). — SomeHuman 17 Jun2007 10:47–10:55 (UTC)

I placed it here not just because of the intent of the wording, but because of the grammar. "...caused a tedious path for Islam to become at the level of..." is ungrammatical and the last clause needs a conjunction. If there are eight recognized religions, I'd suggest listing them and briefly encapsulating what the status means. Marskell 11:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Which would put undue attention to this topic in an already lengthy article: The main religions (or is it groups of recognized religions: I do not know which eight are recognized, surely Ganchelkas is one of the few contributors who so far were able to clearly point out flaws in my essential assumptions on which I had based argumentations on talk pages) should suffice here and further elaborations belong in Religion in Belgium (mentioned at top of the subsection). Unfortunately, I do not quite follow your grammatical analysis. As you understand the intend, please do improve on grammar, but try to accurately maintain the present content which is fully supported by references: religion is one of the most likely topics to cause endless debates and as it stands, it is not a subject of one. May I suggest (something like):
"Nevertheless, symbolically and materially the Roman Catholic Church stays in a favourable position, and the Belgian concept of an officially 'recognized religion' as also attained by, for instance, Jewish and Protestant religions, had for Islam caused a tedious path toward this level, while other minority religions such as Buddhism do not yet have that status."

I just found another source on the subject, be it only availabe in Dutch as far as I saw so far., see "Voorstel van resolutie (...) betreffende het islamonderricht in het onderwijs", on Islam teaching in education, more important for Islam than for e.g. Buddhism or Hinduism; the presented resolution handles viewpoints on religious freedom in Belgium. — SomeHuman 17 Jun2007 12:13 (UTC)

Just for the record, the following "religions" are recognised: Catholicism, Protestantism, Anglicanism, Orthodox Christianity, Judaism, Islam and the "vrijzinnige levensbeschouwelijke organisaties" (or whatever they're called officially), and Buddhism (though I'm not sure how far they are in the process of recognition, I suppose they're still trying to organise themselves). I once tracked down a piece of legislation listing the first seven recognised religions, I'll see whether I can dig it up again. --Ganchelkas 12:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

"A first step towards recognition" is the translation of my memory about my interpretation of what was said by, I think, (government) Minister Onckelinckx on TV news earlier this year. I do not think this first step might already be called a status of 'recognized religion': I assume it has few practical implications (apart from financing operational costs of the Buddhist Union of Belgium itself) and Islam had taken this step many years before attaining the desired practical level of recognition. My rendering includes Judaism, Protestantism and Anglicanism (the latter at least from a Belgian, Catholic reference frame considered Protestant like Calvinism, Lutheranism. The separate 'Anglican' is assumedly a consequence of the clearly organized hierarchical structure of what would otherwise have resorted under Protestantism, a wide group like Judaism which I assume includes the Antverpian Chassidim community).

My above suggested sentence might however best mention "Orthodox, Protestant, and Jewish religions" (no more need to call Orthodox 'Christian' than for Catholic or Protestant, in the context and word order one would not assume this to be Orthodox Judaism; furthermore the naming where I just found it, does not mention 'Christian' either, rather "katholiscisme, protestantisme, anglicanisme, Israëlitische eredienst, islamitische eredienst, orthodoxe eredienst", Israëlitisch, hm.)

(Also for Markell's sake:) "vrijzinnige levensbeschouwelijke organisaties" means 'Freethought lifestance organisations' (which in Belgium probably means organisations once best known as 'Humanistisch Verbond' (Humanistic Union) by the Flemish (as 'Centre d'action laïque' by French-speakers ???), and —judging by the Happy Human logo on their European parent's website— all members of the IHEU). — SomeHuman 17 Jun2007 16:20 (UTC)

And this

"There are no official statistics on Belgium's three official languages (or their dialects) that inhabitants prefer. As no census exists, such is not always simply established for an individual (language of which parent or of which years of education). Figures here given for Dutch, French or German include foreign immigrants and their children for whom neither is necessarily the primary language : 59% of the Belgian population, being 6.23 million people in the north, mainly in the region Flanders, speaks Dutch (while Belgians of both major language groups often refer to it as Flemish) ; French is spoken by 40%, comprising 3.32 million in the southern region Wallonia and an estimated 0.87 million or 85% of the officially bilingual Brussels-Capital Region — in which enclave encompassed by the Flemish Region thus a minority of perhaps 0.15 million speaks Dutch, its local language till shortly before Belgium's independence. With recent immigration having caused 56.5% of the capital region's population to be of foreign origin, usually natively neither French nor Dutch-speaking, neither official language is the primary one for roughly half of the inhabitants (though 74% has the Belgian nationality). In general the population of Brussels is younger and the gap between rich and poor is wider. Of the 73,000 people of the German-speaking Community in the east of the Walloon Region, around 10,000 German and 60,000 Belgian nationals are speakers of German; roughly 23,000 more of its speakers live in municipalities near the official Community."

I presume this has been revert-warred over. It's so muddled I don't even know where to begin. Marskell 12:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

---

"The residents of a nearby enclave within Flanders, the officially bilingual Brussels-Capital Region, are for 56% of recent foreign descent and most others speak French, locally a de facto lingua franca."

I have cut this for now to allow it to be incorporated into the above. It also doesn't make much sense. Marskell 12:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The first part, as far as I'm concerned, does not need to be in the article. But Vb (possibly others as well) insisted on the "as no census exists" and tried to get a vague notion like 'majority' instead of figures on Brussels' French-speakers into the article, incorrectly argumenting that sources are contradictory. They are only contradictory if one does not read what precisely is shown by the figures and compares incompatible things. The 'census' part might be too relevant from one POV to leave it out: The language border and the municipalities with language facilities were determined for once and for all by the at that time (1962 I believe) most recent official census on the native language of the population (though already old, I think it dated from 1947 or so). The historical constant immigration by French-speakers into Dutch-language municipalities very near to the unofficial language border where they could remain in contact with French-speakers and were sure to find nearly all Flemish locals able to speak French (versus Flemish who by their knowledge of French, or poverty-stricken by lack of choice, rather emigrated farther away from Flanders to any interesting part of Wallonia, e.g. the still thriving mining and steel industry, where as a clearly small minority they simply had to speak French and became integrated soon, with French-speaking children), had caused a continuous northwardly creeping of the language border (most of the current Walloon Brabant was once Dutch-speaking). Hence the firm Flemish demand on fixed borders (which was compensated of course). As the border had to be final, politicians agreed on not trying to have a new census in the future, because such would then invoke questioning those definitively fixed borders. One can compare this with having national borders, those do not change because people from a neighbouring country immigrate. With respect to the recent Elio Di Rupo threats to strive for bringing Brussels' rim municipalities from the Flemish Region to the "bilingual" Capital Region which is de facto French-speaking, apart from official matters and even those have given problems for Dutch-speakers in the past, that 'census' thing has become a French-speakers 'blame' against the Flemish. Anyway, the same process of migration did not stop, of course. And the "facilities for French-speakers" which were according to the Flemish intended for the French-speakers who already lived there in the 1960s, kept being used by newcomers as the agreement on the facilities according to the French-speakers is a permanent obligation. Hence mayors trying to keep their local majority of Flemish people happy, with assistance from e.g. the notorious Minister Peeters, keep sending documents in Dutch and expect French-speakers to ask a French version at each and every occasion. This was after a long legal fight found correct, and (some) French-speakers blame the for this matter highest court to have made a political judgement. Hence the French side tried to get European inspectors/reporters to let the French-speakers in the Flemish Region become considered a 'language minority' that should be protected under a European protection scheme that was not ratified by Belgium, for the explained obvious reasons. From the French-language POV, the French-speakers are nationals of Belgian territory living in an officially Dutch-speaking area and thus a language minority, as seen by the European treaty; from the Flemish POV, the French-speakers immigrated into the Flemish Region and are thus not "nationals" of Flemish territory but voluntary immigrants, not protected by that treaty. There is however no subnationality in Belgium, thus from a European POV, Belgians are Belgians and remain such if they move inside their Belgian country, regardless the region. On the other hand, the constitution does not allow to change the language border or the changing of a facilities status of a municipality, unless by a special majority by the representatives from each side of the language border. Any Flemish party that today would consider changing that border, would commit instant suicide; thus Elio Di Rupo's attitude towards this is either window-dressing for his public, or an attempt to sell constitutional changes for further regionalization of specific matters as demanded by Flemish parties, at the highest price (to escape from an unthinkable language border negotiation while keeping repeated public promises of a desired constitutional change). But it does make this 'census' thing a very sensitive matter for the article.

The first sentence appears correct to me:

"There are no official statistics on Belgium's three official languages (or their dialects) that inhabitants prefer"... to speak or e.g. to fill in forms, in other words, which they themselves consider to be their own language if they are native Belgians, or the preferred Belgian language if they are immigrants or children of immigrants who learned to speak at first in their mother's or father's language. The second sentence indicates that it is very hard to obtain reliable figures on such: many people have parents originally speaking different languages, Dutch and French, which parent determines the child's language? Always the mother? What if the mother died or the parents were divorced and the child (exceptionally) stayed with the father, what if this happened at 1 year of age and what if it happened at 12? There are still quite a number of people in Brussels who can speak perfect Brussels dialect (a Dutch dialect with more French loanwords than elsewhere but perfectly intelligible for other Brabantian dialect-speakers and vice versa) but cannot read Dutch language, as they were educated in French-language schools and Dutch is only written in standard language, which they never learned to speak and is mutually less intelligible with the Brussels dialect. Instead of looking at the parents, which is no solution if both parents speak a foreign language, should one consider the first years at school in which one learned to read and write, as one's own Belgian language? Should it be the language in which one obtained the highest diploma, in which one is supposed to be educated to the highest level of mastering the language, and would the latter be logical as now many students go abroad to study e.g. for a masters degree, often in English, not a Belgian language? Thus any survey should set out precise parameters which are bound to be confusing for some of the surveyed people and scientifically and politically contested afterwards. How does one then determine a 'language minority' to exist?

This merely situates the socio-political problem. I hope to come back on this later on, to help finding a solution for the article. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 18 Jun2007 00:32–02:46 (UTC)

"'Too much details about Brussels in the lead'...

...to exclude NPOV, now to support that POV suddenly does not count any more?"

To be clear, I don't believe ANY of these details belong in the lead. "The officially bilingual Brussels Capital Region has 10% of the population" is perfectly fine. See WP:LEAD and explain why we need over-specifics in the first place. The article says " the territory of the Brussels-Capital Region is included in both the Flemish and French Communities." I first read "enclave within" innocently. I now see it as POV. We can't we just remove it entirely? Marskell 06:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree Vb 18:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course Vb "agrees". Markell, just read my 2007-06-19 01:56 comment and argumentation in the relevant section, do not allow crippling that fully consistent logic of this paragraph:

Straddling the cultural boundary between Germanic and Latin Europe, Belgium's two largest regions are Dutch-speaking Flanders in the north, with 58% of the population, and the French-speaking southern region of Wallonia, which accomodates 32%. The Brussels-Capital Region is an officially bilingual enclave within the Flemish and near the Walloon Region, and has 10% of the population.[α] A small German-speaking Community exists in eastern Wallonia.[•] Belgium's linguistic diversity and related political and cultural conflicts are reflected in the political history and a complex system of government.
α. Leclerc, Jacques , membre associé du TLFQ (2007-01-18). "Belgique • België • Belgien — Région de Bruxelles-Capitale • Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest". L'aménagement linguistique dans le monde (in French). Host: Trésor de la langue française au Québec (TLFQ), Université Laval, Quebec. Retrieved 2007-06-18. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)

The Communities are not Regions! The institutional concept of a geographically circumscribed area within which a language is official, is not what an uninformed reader would expect by the term community; and the paragraph does clearly state that two communities in the classical sense are involved in Belgium. The terms 'enclave within' have as only meaning in English entity which is not a part of but encompassed by another entity, namely, and 'near the Walloon Region' makes it clear that as well the classic-sense community of the encompassing Region as that of the nearby Region may relate to it, which is clearly confirmed by the term 'bilingual' (which actually does mean that both institutional Communities must play a role there). Your 'innocent' reading is the correct one, see for instance the provided reference that calls not only "Brussels" at first, but also the "Region" further on, an enclave in/within (dans) the Flemish one. Look in that source at the map of Brussels and the relevant encompassing and nearby provinces, to the right of the second mentioning as enclave, if you would still have doubts about 'within'. The source is a French-Canadian university, thus certainly not Flemish POV and most unlikely to have been influenced by such, at the contrary: the author is an associated member of the Trésor de la langue française au Québec (ever heard of La Francophonie?). It is however a wellknown French-Belgian POV to depict Brussels as if it were smack on the border between Flanders and Wallonia, thus to hide the correct information which puts the officially bilingual area of Belgium separated from the officially French-speaking area. That is as much Belgium as Brussels being bilingual or any other fact in the lead, and it is one of the most relevant facts regarding the language disputes and its settlements in Belgium. The lead mustnot depict Brussels in a way that otherwise to any innocent reader suggests the French-speaking POV that has never been true; Belgium is not a unitary state with French as single official or till 1967 advantaged language either, no more than it is still a part of the Low Countries or the United Netherlands with a 95% Dutch-speaking population in Brussels. And please, do not let Vb trick you by sometimes signing article edits with Vb and other times with every few days changing IP addresses (84.175.<rest changing>) as if there would be a crowd: it's only Vb. If you encounter paragraphs where Vb and I have different opinions about, you will most likely find several previous sections on this talk page about the particular subject. If you arrived here without reading the initially mentioned relevant section, do not forget to do so now. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 20 Jun2007 04:14 (UTC)

Funny enough I also agree with SomeHuman. I agree that Brussels is an enclave within the Flemish Region. What I don't agree with is putting this infomation in the lead because this information standing alone at the head of this article can be misunderstood and should be complemented with many other comments which clearly would make the lead too detailed and too long. This phrasing and editorial choice to put it in the lead is a clear POV-pushing case. I agree with Marskell in the sense that the best compromise is to utterly suppress the sentence. I already suggested a compromise above. In this compromise, a footnote replace all the currently existing footnotes on this topic in the lead. In this footnote only the fact is mntioned that the status of Brussels is complicated and that details can be found in the appropriated sections (Communities and regions as well as languages. Vb 06:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

"The Communities are not Regions!" Yes, and we need a clause to explain that. Or we don't. Just keep the lead short and save the details until later. It's a simple concept. Marskell 07:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

This used to be the concept of this article for years! I of course agree. Vb 07:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I see I've missed a whole lot of the discussion. What on earth can be so POV pushing about this:

Straddling the cultural boundary between Germanic and Latin Europe, Belgium's two largest regions are Dutch-speaking Flanders in the north, with 58% of the population, and the French-speaking southern region of Wallonia, inhabited by 32%. The Brussels-Capital Region is an officially bilingual enclave within the Flemish and near the Walloon Region, and has 10% of the population.[α] A small German-speaking Community exists in eastern Wallonia.[•] Belgium's linguistic diversity and related political and cultural conflicts are reflected in the political history and a complex system of government.

I consider this a good lead, with a logical order (north-south, large-smaller), no redundant details, and we got rid of the 'accomodates'. The enclave thing should stay because, as SomeHuman says, it's one of the major causes of conflict. That it is "near" the Walloon Region is ok by me as well. Btw, check the French article if you'd want some more to discuss. --Dionysos1 07:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It is simply to detailed and too controversial to be discussed at this place. Vb07:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

So, it's alright than? Finally the discussion ends! --Dionysos1 07:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Last paragraph of Language section

I am the opinion this version of the paragraph is better than the current one.

In 2006, the university of Louvain-la-Neuve published a survey report showing Flanders' leadership in speaking multiple languages to be considerable : 59% of the Flemish respondents can speak French and 53% English; of the Walloons on the other hand, merely 19% Dutch and 17% English; of the Brussels' residents, 95% declare to be able to speak French, 59% Dutch, and 41% the non-local English. In Flanders, Wallonnia and Brussels, 59, 10, and 28 percent of people under forty can speak all three languages. In each region, Belgium's third official language, German, is notably less known than any of this survey's forementioned ones.

Because:

• The phrasing "Coheir of the oldest..." is pedantic and provides no information. I am aware that there is no official translation of the name "Université Catholique de Louvain". However most authors from this University translate the name as "University of Louvain-la-Neuve" because the translation "University of Louvain" can be mistaken with the "University of Leuven" (Louvain is the traditional English and French translation of Leuven).
• The phrasing "Economically significant in an increasingly globalizing epoch, in their respective regions 59, 10, and 28 percent of people under forty can speak all three languages." must be utterly changed because
  • "Economically significant in an increasingly globalizing epoch" is simply insulting for the French-speaking segment of the Belgian population.
  • "in their respective regions 59, 10, and 28 percent" is a totured wording. "respective" should be avoided if possible. It breaks the reading flow. THe reader has to read backward to understand what means which number.

Vb 06:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree the Coheir thing sounds way too biblical. The Vb's proposal is OK by me but I'd add French-speaking as well to make clear that this is not just a Flemish point of view. --Dionysos1 07:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

This is another clear case of what I accused Vb of in the beginning of section #Let's do some real work, including about easily finding a supporter. It's Vb's trademark 'technique'. As usually when Vb starts a "new" section somewhere later on, the real discussion went on earlier, all arguments have been properly presented in the section #undoubtedly wellknown. There is also more about this paragraph in the sections #Let's do some real work and #Edit war Vb/SomeHuman. I refuse to have to jump to every new section on old discussions at every of Vb's whimses and thus sooner or later Vb will be able to say "See talk page" if I stay absent for a week. I'm not going to rebuke the same a fourth time, or next week a fifth... A coheir is not so very biblical but rather feudal, and in this case the only way to present the fact that the university of Leuven is the oldest in Belgium, while the French-language (which for a part of its history has been its only language) was ousted out towards Louvain-la-Neuve; this still makes the latter entitled to say it's the oldest but so can the Dutch-speaking university at the original location. They truly are coheirs of the reputation connected with being the oldest university in the country. — SomeHuman 20 Jun2007 16:01 (UTC)

Of course I know the story of Louvain-la-Neuve. Also I know the word coheir is not biblical, but the construction is too complicated: it should just be the largest French-speakers university of the country or the University of Louvain-la-Neuve, that it's old doesn't matter in that context, nor that it has a Flemish counterpart. But I absolutely disagree with the last two points of Vb. I'm sorry for him that French is degrading on a world scale, but it's a fact. I understand your patience is gone now, after all those ridiculous discussion above. Respect actually for staying so calm. --Dionysos1 17:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Dionysos1, dear SomeHuman,

I am also losing my patience: "Economically significant in an increasingly globalizing epoch" is an insult -- or at least a judgment -- which has no place in an encyclopaedia. This MUST be removed. That the Flemings are proud of their multilingualism is their good right but that does not allow them to be so arrogant. Please find a country article in Wikipedia where the knowledge of foreign languages is compared between the different segment of the population. Do you think the Flemings would be happy to read something like: "Economically significant in an increasingly globalizing epoch, only 10% of the Flemish people can use a computer while 30% of the Walloons can." Vb 07:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you think the Flemings would let it come that far and stay happy with such situation and say 'Let's all shut up about this subject, its hurts my dignity"? I'm not further commenting on the wishful thinking by an individual. The paragraph's main source that makes the "insult" is French-speaking, Walloon, most authoritative, published in 'Regards économiques' by economists, and its "judgement" is further discussed by another renowned academic specialized in economics (and as that second source shows, the original report was instigated by the European Union and thus all the more likely to play a role in future), and it also being quoted by national and international media as shown in references, makes the article's statement not only unbiassed and true, but also clearly notable, while still phrased more sotto voce than some of the original lines, a few quotes:

• nous abordons quelques aspects qui illustrent les conséquences importantes que la connaissance d’une langue peut avoir à la fois sur le plan macroéconomique et sur le plan individuel (noting important macroeconomical consequences of the knowledge of a language)
• Le tableau est impressionnant, l’avenir nous dira si l’opération aura réussi, mais il ne faut pas se cacher que l’essentiel est de changer les mentalités, encore que celles-ci puissent être partiellement rationalisées par un raisonnement de nature économique. ("The table is impressive, the future will tell us whether the operation will have been successful, but one mustnot hide from the essential, which is to change the mentalities, even though those can partially be rationalized by an argumentation of an economical nature.")
• En effet, la population anglophone est suffisamment importante dans le monde pour que très peu d’entre eux ressentent le besoin d’apprendre une langue étrangère (...), et sur le plan international, les Wallons resteront dès lors sérieusement isolés. ("In fact, the English-speaking population is sufficiently important in the world for very few of its members to feel the need of learning a foreign language (...), and on the international scale, the Walloons will thereby remain seriously isolated.")
• Au bénéfice intellectuel lié à la connaissance d’autres langues (pénétrer mieux dans d’autres cultures, d’autres littératures), s’ajoute souvent un bénéfice économique. ("On top of the intellectual benefit linked to the knowledge of other languages (better penetration in other cultures, other literatures), often an economical benefit is added.")
• Le déficit linguistique de la partie francophone du pays est très évident, et si aucune mesure n’est prise, le futur risque de ressembler très fortement au présent ("The linguistic deficit of the Francophone part of the country is very evident, and if no measures are taken, the future risks ressembling the present" - referring to a further continued deficit, in speaking languages obviously, and probably hinting at the economical lagging behind of the Region as well)
• Mais il est aussi important de se rappeler que l’importance internationale du français se réduit. ("But it is also important to remember that the international importance of French is decreasing.")
• Le chauffeur de l’ambulance est endormi, et il est temps qu’il se réveille ("The ambulance driver is fallen asleep, and it is time he wakes up")

And those quotes come from that Walloon source only; the Dutch-speaking economist in the second source makes a case that this does not go far enough at all, in particular on the first rather accepting "rationalized by an argumentation of an economical nature." (Translated from that retrieved quote: "So far the excuse for the poor knowledge of languages on the Walloon side, as a rational individual choice in a market with external effects. It is remarkable that the authors by their statement explicitly acknowledge this towering problem, but in formulating governance advices still assume their model to be correct.") The final reference that the first source itself mentions, is: "Truchot, Claude (2003), Languages and supranationality in Europe : The linguistic influence of the European Union, in Jacques Maurais, ed., Languages in a Globalising World, Cambridge : Cambridge University Press." — Sounds familiar? — SomeHuman 07 Jul2007 23:26 (UTC)

New European vector maps

You're invite to discuss a new series of vector maps to replace those currently used in Country infoboxes: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#New European vector maps. Thanks/wangi 13:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Note on FAR closure

Having gone over the copy, I have closed this as keep at FAR (don't worry about the tag; the bot will take care of it). The prose could use some further tweaks, but it's better than it was and the most indecipherable stuff has been gone over. If serious revisions are undertaken, someone should contact a native speaker to look at them (a suggestion, not a criticism). Some notes:

• If you want to continue to edit war over one sentence in the intro, go ahead. I don't see the point. However, the basic structure of largest-to-smallest and equal words for Flanders and Wallonia should remain.
• It's mentioned above that Buddhism is now a recognized religion; if so, update the section. I don't think it would be inappropriate to list the eight recognized.
• The table is gibberish to me. I would radically simplify it and/or move it to a sub-article, if it's not in one already.
• Wording like "Economically significant in an increasingly globalizing epoch" is indeed POV. Let the facts speak for themselves. Marskell 12:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Marskell. I utterly agree with you. Look at the simplified table I suggested long ago. Vb 18:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for many days of good copyedit work, Marskell. Nevertheless, you and Vb cannot stop to find utter agreement on highly POV edits and on censoring relevant, balanced and well-referenced NPOV information for not supporting that POV, with equally unsupported and never by any logic explained claims (gibberish, eh? in particular after your as Vb wanted wiping of the 1962-1963 'language areas' on which all consequent constitutional changes have build to finally arrive at the present federalized country, still maintaining the four language areas in the Constitution.) I never saw two different people at work with such an incredibly identical lack of offering an argumented discussion and totally forgetting to attempt to puncture presented arguments, while still continuing to state which is POV. The facts cannot speak, but the sources do. And they point out that the younger Walloons' limited knowledge of languages is a serious danger for their economical future. I did reply on your two initial comments in the section The LEAD on Belgium on my talk page. Your great one-mindedness with Vb appears to be rather in contrast with your blunt reverts (at several occasions just like Vb was used to, not checking differences and thus destroying unarguable improvements as well) of my far better documented and argumented edits, and certainly with your latest style on my talk page. — SomeHuman 22 Jun2007 03:09 (UTC)

Rwandan Genocide

I believe that the Rwandan Genocide should be mentioned in the artcile since Belgium is one of few colonist countries who are responsible for this genocide and for not doing anything to stop it. By the way, before sending a reply to my post please have a good look at the wikipedia article: Rwandan Genocide. Thelorien 18:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not of those opinions, neither of a particular Belgian responsibility, nor of the Rwandan Genocide requiring a mentioning in the 'Belgium' article (its links to Ruanda-Urundi and Rwanda suffice). In the 'Rwandan Genocide' article, I put a tag in its section 'Background' as I dispute the neutrality of that section (the weakest section of that article, causing its FA status being declined). See my reply to Thelorien on that talk page in its section Belgium Should Apologize. That should be resolved before considering a mentioning in 'Belgium'. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 24 Jun2007 20:15 (UTC)

FAR removed

I have removed Wikipedia:Featured article review/Belgium from WP:FAR. First, the FAR wasn't listed here on the talk page. Second, it doesn't appear that steps have been taken to resolve the dispute here on the talk page; WP:FAR is not dispute resolution. Third, the previous FAR just closed, so re-opening a new FAR should wait several weeks, during which time neutrality will hopefully be resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that is not just, an article with disputed neutrality don't was to remain between the Featured Articles. Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 20:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

That's why I felt it should have its Featured Status removed. It would then be up to the editors editing the article to have consensus before it could regain FA status. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The version that I kept at the moment that I kept it was within criteria. I made 40-odd edits to get it there. It probably will come back, but we should at least wait a few weeks. Marskell 10:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Only one person, Vb, insists on tagging this article as biased, without a proper argumentation. Not a soul agreed with him: not since the tags are up, not during the numerous lengthy discussions before, apart from Marskell – also without providing any reasoning – be it mainly during his last days of copyediting of which in particular 2007-06-21 was a really off day, see 'The LEAD on Belgium' on my talk page (and I did not even mention all the errors he introduced then). And in its present state (at which Vb and I kept editing, not always disagreeing), the FA status appears deserved.

SandyGeorgia appears to make the same mistake that Marskell apparently made: Wikipedia does not praise "neutrality" about discrimination, murder, the Holocaust etc. It requires a neutral point of view in weighing the sources for their relevance etc, and not showing a particular point of view by tendencious terminology. It does not dictate the incorrect rephrasing of good sources or mistranslating them so as not to step on overly sensitive feet, in particular not when these proper sources are from the opposite side as that which Vb states the POV to come from.

For Belgium or its predecessors as the Low Countries or the Southern Netherlands, the speakers of Dutch never discriminated the speakers of French. But French has been the only official language; higher education did exist only in French; good positions were reserved for French-speakers; the Dutch version of the Law was only informative, as the French text always prevailed until 1967; forty years ago, 80% of the financial capital and property of the Belgians were in the minority of French-speakers' possession; Belgian diplomatic circles still favour French; Flemings paying a mere visit to Wallonia still have to speak French, while Walloons can even live in Flanders without speaking the language. Those facts cannot be 'balanced' by facts of a reverse nature, because there are none. And one cannot deny that community and language matters are most important and notable about Belgium, thus cannot be entirely swept out of the article. In fact, many further aspects of forementioned nature are not in the article, up to the point that one could far more easily cry 'French POV'.

— SomeHuman 08 Jul2007 01:47 (UTC)

Given that bizarre phrasing—"For Islam, Belgium's concept of 'recognized religions' caused a tedious path to being treated in the manner of the Jewish and Protestant religions"—has been reintroduced, I wouldn't complain to me about off days. I stand by the sum total of my edits (though I'm not a typo-free editor) as a great improvement. Does this need another FAR? No, but whatever. If you won't compromise on clearly POV language, round it goes again. Marskell 14:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Marskell, you had made it, I do quote you literally: "Belgium has a policy 'recognized religions'; this has allowed Islam to be treated in the manner of the Jewish and Protestant religions". That is not bizarre, that is a blatant error against English. That is not bizarre, that is wrong: that "policy" is not a "policy" but mainly a set of laws, a concept. That is not bizarre, that is utterly misleading, the opposite of the authentic statement: the concept did not allow (which in this context would have to be interpreted as facilitate) Islam to be treated equally: the concept caused a long and tiresome way with many obstacles to overcome before arriving there. And you are surprised that I "reintroduced the earlier version"?... Actually, I had changed the earlier "to become" into "to being" and had put "For Islam" at the start of the sentence instead of behind 'path', while I maintained your change of the earlier "at the level" into "in the manner". Perhaps you can explain what you, after these three changes, still find so 'bizarre', or demonstrate it by properly copyediting the phrase while maintaining "Belgium's concept of 'recognized religions'" and "caused a tedious path". Do you perhaps refer to the typical phrase "tedious path" in Islam teaching? I see that usage as innocent irony for the well-informed, which augments the quality of the phrase. Please do understand that I consider your copyediting a great improvement as well, I only had and still have strong reservations about your last series of edits from the 18th till the 21th of June, and not all of those were without merit, of course.

Marskell, your POV is most clear. Or do you think it to be normal to deliberately deviate from the article text and from the in reference quoted original French-language report, by changing this:

"In 2006, the largest French-speaking university published a survey report calling Flanders' leadership in speaking multiple languages "undoubtedly wellknown", and showing this lead to be considerable : 59% of the Flemish respondents can speak French and 53% English; of the Walloons on the other hand, merely 19% Dutch and 17% English; of the Brussels' residents, 95% declare to be able to speak French, 59% Dutch, and 41% the non-local English. Economically significant in an increasingly globalizing epoch, in their respective regions 59, 10, and 28 percent of people under forty can speak all three languages."

into this:

"In 2006, the largest French-speaking university published a survey report calling Flanders' leadership in speaking multiple languages "undoubtedly wellknown": 59% of the Flemish respondents reported being able to speak French, and 53% English; of Walloons, only 19% spoke Dutch and 17% English; of Brussels' residents, 95% reportedly speak French, 59% Dutch, and 41% English. In their respective regions 59%, 10%, and 28% of people under forty can speak all three languages." ?

• You left out the report's conclusion: the previously assumed leadership was by the reported survey shown to be considerable. In the words of the French-speaking professor at the Walloon university as most visible in his short introduction in that in reference literally quoted French-language report. I had pointed that out, and with the comments on French/English I had made and your infobox of elementary French, you cannot even pretend ignorance.
• You introduced "reported being able to speak" where this is immediately preceded by the term 'respondents' that by itself already indicates "this is what they responded, what they claim". Your edit deliberately casted doubt about the correctness of the Flemish respondents' statement. The French-speaking professor does not imply any such thing, he simply wrote (in French, here translated a bit too literally:) "The survey shows that Flanders is clearly more multilingual, which is without doubt a wellknown fact, but the difference is considerable: although 59% and 53% of the Flemings know French or English respectively, only ..." — and then, in contrast, for the Walloons you claim that they "spoke" Dutch and English. The professor used for Flemish and Walloons the identical term "connaissent" (literally meaning "know" but in English usually phrased as "can speak", a phrasing that does not as generally occur in French).
• You replaced "on the other hand, merely" with "only", though the French text uses "alors que ... seulement" which clearly points out the contrast with what precedes. And "seulement" can mean "only" or "merely", but the nearly identical phrase deeper within the report uses "à peine" which literally means "with an effort" (like 'only with an effort, with extra goodwill, one can state') and needs to be translated as "merely". All that too, I had explained when defending the proper translation; you cannot hide behind ignorance for this either. (The article at present uses "on the other hand, only", thus milder than the text in the report but still according to the text in the report's introduction.)
• Again bending over backwards to indulge Vb, you left out "Economically significant in an increasingly globalizing epoch", thus its following statement is utterly out of the context it has in the report. That too I had more than sufficiently argumented on this talk page before, and yesterday again with a whole series of quotes from the report that show that the statement behind that wiped part is indeed significant, economically, for the future, because of the increasing need of knowing several languages, in an international context.

So I have by arguments shown your edit to only one paragraph to have been a breach of NPOV (and there were several other such edits, as you found argumented on my talk page e.g. about the Federal "prerogatives" and the elimination of the location only of Brussels). I dare you to do the same with any of my edits in an article. Else, you must stop making your false accusations of "clearly POV language" on my behalf, as you did repeatedly and always without the least argument, only based on your sovereign perception which is most likely mainly steered by what you find argumented by me on talk pages: I do not hide my personal or others' recognized points of view there, because there they serve to attain proper NPOV articles.

And no, I will certainly not "compromise on POV". The ridiculous hypersensitivity of Vb that is blindly followed by you, and that ousts everything that does not sound unjustly flattering for French-speakers, though coming from notable Walloon sources of which the pro French-speakers bias has even been criticized by another professor, is not acceptable. There mustnot be any censorship for purely POV reasons, and most certainly not by leaving out what you do not like in the exact translation of the Walloon professor's own words in a final report. I accept only an NPOV article. The tagging of such as disputed by an individual should indeed neither be judged by the people concerned with FA status, nor cause a FAR, and certainly mustnot prevent them from judging the article on its own merits. I saw numerous edits by many contributors, often for minor improvements, but none apart from you found it necessary to 'improve' towards the only by Vb supported text parts for which Vb claims my phrasing to be POV. In particular with such tagging, would that be likely if the article deserved that tag? Doesn't any French-speaking Belgian contributor ever read this main article on Belgium, then?

To set things in a proper perspective: Do you think it to be flattering for the Flemish when they read that the Belgae were "mostly Celtic tribes" (without further context usually interpreted as Gallic, read: they were forefathers of the French-speakers in Belgium)? In his famous report on the Wars in Gaul, 'De Bello Gallico', Gaius Julius Caesar himself had stated the Belgae to speak a German(ic) language. Do you think it feels nice for the Flemish to learn that the famous Flemish painting gradually declined shortly after it became distincted from the Dutch painting? The first is a disputed matter, but sources do happen to allow the 'mostly Celtic' phrasing, and the second was indeed the case, though the fact of being distincted from Dutch painting probably had nothing to do with its decline during the 2nd half of the 17th century and later on — should we then refer once again to this "theatre of most Franco-Spanish and Franco-Austrian wars during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries"? Could both uncomfortable phrases be mentioned in a less, as you or Vb would call it, "POV" way? Well, I tried (and certainly did rephrase your emphasis on that POV about Celtic), but as the current phrases are not obviously intended and probably by most readers not interpreted as biased, one should not go at too great lenghts and into dull details only for an arguable and minute improvement on NPOV. And most certainly not by wiping the phrases out of the article because they just might 'hurt my feelings'.

— SomeHuman 08 Jul2007 20:51-21:11 (UTC)

Dear SomeHuman,

Your argumentations may be long but it is nevertheless false. Your translation of French is utterly POV. Please put this in an NPOV language and you get it. This is not that difficult. I did it several time in the past. Being reverted all the time and simultaneously insulted as a troll. You are not funny anymore. Vb 12:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The only false thing here is you, Vb: for you my argumentations are false, of course, only because these do not confirm your obstinate and extreme POV. You cannot show anything in my argumentations to be false. You cannot show anything in my translations to be false either. But you keep accusing me and discrediting my work, "Dear" Vb. — SomeHuman 23 Jul2007 21:36 (UTC)

Sic

What is [sic]? Literal quote or not, I don't think there exist things like 'redenenen' and 'het filosofie'. Talking about tampering... Wikifalcon 13:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

You had placed the above remark on my talk page, I moved it here because also another user had already missed on 'sic'. Please, when referring to edits on any other place than the relevant article's talk page, do mention (and preferrably link) that relevant article.
Errors that occur in a quoted original text, mustnot be "corrected", such is considered tampering with a quote. The edit history of Belgium shows that both User:Van helsing and I pointed out that '[sic]' was inserted within a literal quote (used in a reference on the section 'Religion'). In the previous sentence here, I linked the term you apparently do not know, just read the article about it. That article mentions it is usually italicized; in fact it might better state it usually to be visually rendered in a style that makes it stand out from the quoted text. I ensured such by showing it in smaller character, which is also quite common, possibly even more common than using italics, and draws less attention while appearing less confusing. In particular in html (internet pages), my preferred style is clearly superior, because it keeps standing out even if a style sheet or style markup (as often used in a WP template) would be modified afterwards (e.g. some WP templates render an entire quote automatically in italics, thus one can assume someone might modify the template 'cite news' to show quotes italicized).
Notice also it was here used in a quote (of Senator Lizin) by the newspaper Metro within a quote (of Metro) by myself (using the cite news template). That is why the [sic] had been brought outside the quote marks, indicating that not the newspaper but indeed the WP contributor had pointed out the incorrect choice of the definite article. That is very important: a '[sic]' by Metro would indicate the French-speaking senator to have made a blatant error against the Dutch language, whereas a '[sic]' by the WP contributor indicates that it is more likely for the newspaper to have made the mistake; not bringing the '[sic]' outside the quotemarks, would itself be tampering with the senator's quote. The intention of [sic] is precisely to ensure readers to realize that the error was not a mistake by the WP contributor, and mustnot be "corrected". Your correction of 'redenenen' to 'redenen' on the other hand, was fully appreciated and of course not reverted, that was a copy/paste error that did not occur in the original quote (and then of course showed no '[sic]'). — SomeHuman 22 Jul2007 10:43 (UTC)

Allright then:-) Wikifalcon 12:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Languages section & POV

I preferred my version [6] of the language knowledge of the different populations in Belgium than the current one. I don't see the need to take over the tone of the report (a tone used in order to get Wallonia into action) to an encyclopedic article. The content of the study (the language knowledge) is relevant to an encyclopedia, the tone isn't. And I think I'm fairly neutral as a Fleming. I won't start an edit war, but I do hope that my version or a similar version is restored. Sijo Ripa 20:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The tone of the report goes much further than what was in the article before your edit (see samples in section #Last paragraph of Language section). There can however be no tampering with the French-speaking scolars clear view about the need for bringing the urgence of the matter and the seriousness of it to the Belgian public. WP:NPOV, means a neutral point of view, it does NOT mean neutrality against all points of view. The report does not merely show the Flemish point of view but instead it shows mainly or solely the Walloon point of view of scolars advising Walloon politicians (as well as European politicians) and newpapers having made this the only WP:NOTABLE Walloon point of view (Le Soir might even be the largest Walloon newspaper as La Libre Belgique is stronger mainly in Brussels). There is absolutely no WP:NOTABLE opposing point of view: no-one denies the facts shown by the survey, no-one suggests its tone to be exaggerated, and no-one denies its relevance. WP:NPOV then dictates to express that single point of view, see WP:NPOV and WP:NOTABILITY. I'm quite sure about your good faith editing, but your text deviated from that WP:policy and WP:guideline, and it was still not enough for Vb, who within 5 minutes still censored further. Hence by now, WP policy did not leave me any other choice than to fall back to the most strict WP:ATTRIBUTION and literal unabridged quote of the report presentation precisely as it was published, with Vb's continued censoring of any economical relevance, including the Walloon economical 'Marshal Plan' that required a short clarification. And I had to translate the (formerly for many readers incomprehensible) Dutch text of the secondary scolared source (that criticizes the authors of the report for not going far enough). I had formerly stretched the bending[sic] to make it sound as mild as the notable sources could possibly allow, as far as was possible without blatantly throwing WP:NPOV overboard. It had the advantage of producing better English and higher readability, and I was satisfied with it. But that required acceptance of that text by other contributors, a consensus; with continued accusations of POV there can be no copyediting to express what sources are supposed to have published, contrarily only the attributed published text can suffice because WP:NPOV is not susceptible to consensus. — SomeHuman 23 Jul2007 22:21–24:00 (UTC)

I had earlier been considering to change "Economically important in an increasingly globalizing epoch" into "Economically significant for the future", but the Ginsburgh–Weber report makes no less than four separate references to Jacques Maurais, ed., Languages in a Globalising World, Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, in particular to contributions by Fodor, Ferenc and Sandriner Peluau (2003), by Laponce, Jean (2003), by Maurais, Jacques himself (2003), and by Truchot, Claude (2003). And the Ginsburgh–Weber report chapter 2 "Et le futur ?" ("And the future ?") ends with "La Wallonie est par conséquent en défaut sur deux points. Les Wallons n’apprennent pas la langue de la majorité des belges, et ils n’apprennent pas non plus l’anglais, qui pour de bonnes ou de moins bonnes raisons, est devenue la première langue internationale." ("Consequently, Wallonia is in error on two points. The Walloons do not learn the language of the majority of the Belgians, and neither do they learn English, which for good or less good reasons, has become the first international language.") With that "for good or less good reasons" one can hardly assume the report to be quite neutral but one must spot an inclination towards a pro-French-speaking point of view, apart from what has been criticized by the Schoors reference. I had already presented other samples from the report, of the noted increasing globalization. By the way, Sijo Ripa, in case you belong to the 59% that also speaks French, please read under "Et le futur ?" the entire paragraph that ends with "Mais il y a plus inquiétant si l’on examine la dynamique dans deux des trois cas où des données sont disponibles : l’utilisation de l’anglais augmente sensiblement, et celle du français se réduit." — SomeHuman 24 Jul2007 01:28 (UTC)

Well Sijo Ripa. I completely agree with what you wrote about the distinction between tone and content. Everybody agree with the fact that Walloons speak less (and much less as proven by the numbers issued from the article) foreign languages than the Flemings. Everybody also agree that this is worth being mentioned here. However I UTTERLY disagree with how these facts are presented. First point: this is very uncommon to cite one work by the university where it has been published and not by the authors. Then it is much more uncommon not to give the name of this university but a description of it. This is as if one would say the largest English university in place of Oxford. The only goal of writing this this way is to prove the reader that even French authorities recognize this. This is true but it makes the prose POVed. Because of this stylistic choice, the paragraph sounds like a Flemish argumentation trying to prove a case. Second, "in a globalizing epoch", sounds also like an argument to prove a case more than an information. It underlines the fact that the paragraph has been written by a Flemish authors. Please think about something: if you want to show that the Walloons are idiot. Make it in a NPOV way: it is much more credible! Vb 08:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

To readers of the English language WP, Oxford might be slightly better known than Louvain-la-Neuve which is not even its official name, while you already on 19 June 2007 correctly pointed out that the official name could be confusing. Thus I would think you could appreciate my mentioning it by its in Belgium very wellknown abbreviation and for non-Belgian readers the correct description (which allows avoiding to mention "university" twice). Indeed it is important for readers to realize that the source is French-speaking, which makes the statements self-criticism (usually appreciated, I would assume), and which must prevent readers to assume some Flemish POV study or publication (that would hardly be acceptable in this article, note that I mention a Flemish university professor's text on the subject in a footnote but I never quoted it in the article). Presenting the source properly is not POV, on the contrary allowing readers to assume the wildest origin, that would be POV. The "globalizing" future and the effects of the knowledge of languages for the later economical situation in the regions, is what this report is about; it is what its advices to government are all about; one mustnot hide the major purpose of the report. Hiding that is POV, stating it is evident NPOV (especially as the report uses a stronger terminology like "But it is also important to remember that the international importance of French is decreasing." and "The ambulance driver is fallen asleep, and it is time he wakes up"). Please wake up, Vb, there is no Flemish POV here but only a realization by everyone that is expressed; to my POV it appears thate this realization by French-speakers came late, I hope you to be the very latest and last. I worded the globalizing future in a more matt way (which does decrease the quality of the prose, just like the full quoting already did, the version that you so heavily contested was simply better; but those versions are both NPOV.) — SomeHuman 24 Jul2007 20:06 (UTC)

Footnotes in scrollbox

I apologize if this has already been discussed; please point me to that discussion if it already exists!

References and footnotes should not be hidden from readers like they were objects of shame or something that is "just getting in the way". They are integral to the integrity of our articles. We've already deleted a template that automatically placed references in a scrollbox primarily for the reasons I just outlined but also because of usability concerns. --ElKevbo 16:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

That "We" was not a very convincing majority, I had already read all the arguments. Though a scrollbox can offer several advantages, it also has disadvantages. Having a template would instigate contributors to plaster that template in many articles, while for most articles that would not be desired. It was precisely that concern of overusing that had caused a majority for deleting the template. But there was no discussion about a scrollbox being bad for all cases, and there exists no guideline against it either. In particular, no-one considered the 90 indexes towards well over a hundred footnotes in the 'Belgium' article.
The main concern, also of yourself it appears, was to leave footnotes readily readable. But in case of this article, apart from the footnotes subsection, there are two more and rather extensive subsections with interesting references: the 'General online sources', and the 'Bibliography' (and as everywhere an 'External links' section). Furthermore, there is as for many articles about a country, a quite extensive series of about ten collapsed v.b.e.-boxes. The latter must necessarily come at the end of an article (no-one would try and look underneath those for footnotes or anything).
I think 'Belgium' might be the only article of which the footnotes alone take more kilobytes than the entire article and other references together. These footnotes serve mainly and for most of them solely for the purpose of verifiability. In any case, and possibly unlike what the propagators of the template had in mind, I had enlarged the scrollbox to a height that allows easy reading (about as high as the entire references section of most articles): even the most complex footnotes with the longest quotes could be read entirely without scrolling. One has to scroll without the scrollbox as well: no screen is high enough for the enormous quantity of footnotes. But it is not reasonable to require everyone to perform so tedious a scrolling just to get past the footnotes, to the references that really matter as further reading, and the other mentioned content.
In practice, one would most likely read the article till one finds an index near something of particular interest to the reader. A click jumps to the scrollbox that shows the relevant footnote (the reader never needs to scroll to it), and in nearly all cases also the footnotes thereunder (which often handle the same subtopic) are immediately visible.
Thus the advantages of the high scrollbox greatly outweigh the for this type of scrollbox minor disadvantages, in this particular article. In a perfect world, one should have a 'hide'/'show' baulk: this would allow you to expand the scrollbox to the entire list of footnotes, but I do not yet know a technique that collapses to a still far enough open scrollbox: it would collapse the entire list and just leave one title line – which is certainly unacceptable: I too like to see footnotes, but in this article the list is just far too unreasonably long and requires an unusual measure. Please note that the scrollbox has a frameborder, it is thus immediately apparent to the reader (who might not notice a scrollbar at the right while looking at the start of the footnote lines) that it is unusual and indeed a scrollbox. Every internet surfer knows how to use it and certainly those like you and me paying attention to footnotes will definitely not be deterred.
By-the-way, I personally searched and found a good deal of these many footnotes, and together with SandyGeorgia retrieved nearly all others so as to complete their information properly. If I thought the scrollbox would actually be making my very, very hard work unavailable... — SomeHuman 25 Jul2007 18:44–19:01 (UTC)

I disagree that "every internet surfer knows how to use it" as I have encountered several users that have been very confused by nested "scroll boxes" (is there a more proper term for these objects?). This is a significant change that should be tested for its impact on usability. Our own experiences and opinions are insufficient to gauge its impact or lack thereof on usability. --ElKevbo 20:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The many commercial sites that use frames with a scrolling frame (or even separately scrolling ones left and right) in a scrollable page should be convincing enough: they would not like to jeopardize their venues for the sake of layout alone. And there can hardly be a better suited article to 'test' whether Wikipedia readers are a match to the surfers in general. The extremely long list is otherwise at least as confusing, and one has to scroll the (entire) page so severely that one easily overshoots and not even notices the other references subsections. Whether we would test that or the scrollbox with a life public, makes little difference. But in case the scrollbox works out, that result offers an advantage. I placed a note at top of the scrollbox; if that does not yet suffice to let people perform the easy trick, we should have to worry more about our readers than about our editors. So far, I bet on the readers.
In fact, your terminology is inaccurate: there are no nested scrollboxes here: there is just one simple scrollbox, and 'scrollbox' is the name for it. The scrollbar to the most far right simply scrolls the page like every long page on the internet. Confusing situations occur mainly with scrollboxes or scrollable frames within (other) scrollable frames in a (sometimes also scrollable) page's frameset (in other words, with scrollable frames in nested framesets). — SomeHuman 25 Jul2007 23:32–23:44 (UTC)

You haven't addressed the issue at all. This is confusing and completely unnecessary. I'm not quite sure how one could argue with that. Placing multiple vertical (or horizontal) scrollbars in an article, nested inside one another, is terribly confusing for some people and a real usability problem. It doesn't matter whether they're nested scrollboxes or simply one scrollbox in a page long enough to have its own scrollbar. --ElKevbo 00:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course I addressed the issue. The fact that a scrollbox is a common term, means that it is being used often. Your claim to be worried that people might not know how to use a simple scrollbox, in this case the most simple type that exists, is a claim of WP readers to be complete imbeciles. I refuse to assume such. In particular, the very small minority of people who might have any problem at all with a simple scrollbox, are not very likely to read an article in an encyclopaedia. And the most highly exceptional reader who might, will certainly not be the same reader that would be interested in ploughing through over a hundred footnotes for close inspection; it was the latter reader in whose interest one had decided not to have a template for scrolling footnotes. This is not a suggestion to use a scrollbox in general, but contrarily to use it in this extremely exceptional case because it makes so much sense in these exceptional circumstances. — SomeHuman 26 Jul2007 05:05 (UTC)

While I'm sure you had the best intentions when you increased the height of the scroll box, it highlights yet another usability problem with it. Specifying the height of the scroll box in pixels prevents users from resizing the page and text as they please. In fact, if the main window is not as tall as the scroll box height you specified, the scroll box itself becomes nearly impossible to use. — The Storm Surfer 01:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with that problem. That is why the scrollbox was sized to allow the title 'Footnotes' + the entire scrollbox + the following title 'General online sources' to be seen on most screen, and after a little tweak still the entire scrollbox on the smallest screen WP addresses (800x600 pixels), even in a browser with several lines of controls (I now allowed for one extra line of controls, just to be sure it works for everyone). The problem of difficult scrolling because the scrollbox is not completely visible on the available screen, should thus not occur (of course, one has to position the scrollbox first but that is obvious enough: intuitively one does not put half a scrollbox in view with the intend to start scrolling it). This brings us to the value in px (pixel) units: One could replace it with the font-size related em units, but that would cause the height of the scrollbox to increase with a larger font. Your first concern is more important and requires a height related to the screen height, which is not as different between the screens that different users have or may set. People with a preference for larger fonts will simply see a smaller part of the footnotes in one glimse; but as the scrollbox is set near the maximum height that all screens allow, this will still suffice. These same readers also see less of any ordinary page, in fact they will still see almost as much of the footnotes in the scrollbox than they could see of the footnotes if they were not in a scrollbox. — SomeHuman 27 Jul2007 01:41 (UTC)

There is another problem that you do not seem to recognize: the extreme length of the footnotes in combination with an already lengthy article, causes the normal page scrollbar to be abnormally sensitive: it is almost impossible to bring any section of the article in proper view because a minor move of the scrollbar causes a too large sweep of the article. That is a problem for all users.
Putting the footnotes in a scrollbox decreases that problem to half, which is more in line with what users know from other (lengthy) articles. In the only case that the scrollbox could not be shown entirely on a screen, that is when a user deliberately resizes his browser window to less than screen height, the problem without scrollbox would be even more intense, and at least as problematic as the one you worry about on such screen with a scrollbox. — SomeHuman 27 Jul2007 01:55 (UTC)

Could you please link me to the Wikipedia policy you alude to that requires users to have a certain minimum screen size?

The abnormally sensitive scroll bar you mention is certainly an inconvenience, but it doesn't outweigh the other more pressing technical problems (printing in particular). Actually, it's not a problem for me personally because I use a scroll wheel, which you may be interested to know wigs out when dealing with two scroll bars. — The Storm Surfer 02:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

We were editing here at the same time; In my above comment I just inserted the minimal screen WP caters for, and tweaked the scrollbox more precisely for it under the worst of conditions. Depending on the printing software, under the very worst circumstances one can still select the footnotes and print the selected text separately. Thus printing the footnotes is always possible, but I do not think facilitating printing should be the major concern: such lengthy article requires 11 pages without the footnotes and twice as much with them (even with the footnotes in the small font size they require 5 pages more); few people will like to print such quantities rather than send a link to someone, and even those who insist on wasting some paper will be all too happy that the content of the article can be printed in merely 11 pages without footnotes. — SomeHuman 27 Jul2007 02:42 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it in the future if you'd not modify your comments after I have responded to them. (Or at least use strike-through text). Having an actual size specified is nice, but I still don't know where you're getting that number. And I do not consider printing the footnotes separately to be acceptable. — The Storm Surfer 03:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

As I had mentioned, I had saved the text before I realized that you had so aptly responded. Your eagerness does not allow me to find guidelines that you request before you already obliterate the scrollbox; it appears indeed 800x600. Anyway: do you know someone surfing on a less than 800x600px screen with a browser that can take as many control lines as IE7? Older browsers do not have that many control lines and that compensates for the few pixels less in screen height (as far as such screens might still occur). Some concerns have been brought up elsewhere, for instance in three FA reviews. One person on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of polio survivors mentioned it and that same person removed the scrollbox without support by others and without discussion on the talk page either. It was removed from Bengali Language Movement but that article had a very short list of footnotes for which I would not at all recommend using a scrollbox either. Also Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Russia/archive2 mentioned the concern, but the scrollbox in Russia is still there because no other FA reviewer did appear to mind (though the article was not promoted for other reasons). Your opinion on printing may not be the community's, after all few people would want to print the footnotes and the possibility still remains. Please do not anxiously get the scrollbox out of sight: the article Belgium has a longer series of footnotes than any of the forementioned articles (even with more indexes, the polio article has much shorter footnotes), and people cannot judge the pros and cons if the scrollbox is not there. Better wait for more reactions, those can come only if the scrollbox exists. If there is a genuine problem, it will appear within a few days or a week (and allows someone perhaps showing a nicer solution for printing). — SomeHuman 27 Jul2007 03:43–04:14 (UTC)

Of course it would still be even better in case one could more easily print the entire content of the scrollbox. I do know that modifying style="height:338px;..." into style="Xeight:338px;..." would cause the scrollbox to take all the room it requires for the footnotes. The solution should thus need to modify only one character depending of the page being shown in normal mode or (by the toolbox left of the article) in "Printable version". Suggestions ? — SomeHuman 27 Jul2007 05:14 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what a control line is in this context, but the Apple iPhone apparently has a screen that is 320x480. And I have no way of knowing what the proverbial starving kids in Africa are using these days. — The Storm Surfer 07:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Probably not an Apple iPhone, and those who are starving wouldn't have the electricity for an old PC, nor batteries for their multimedia cell phones with screens that are not suitable for WP regardless the scrollbox. WP sets the low end limit at 600 pixels high screens. I don't know the interface of all those small screen devices, but there should always be a menu system that allows the browser view window using the entire screen, hence allowing also the current scrollbox at 338 pixels on the iPhone.
I referred to what I had earlier called "one extra line of controls", a series of buttons, search bars, etc that a browser usually shows at top of its view window, apart from a status bar at the bottom. Microsoft Internet Explorer traditionally has quite a few series one above another, and in the recent version 7 there came one more (mainly for its tabs to multiple urls in one browser). Even with 600 pixels height, this allows only a relatively low page view window, thus their users will usually eliminate some of the controls anyway – which makes the current scrollbox height even easier accessible.
I appreciate your not immediately reverting, I hope someone can thus come up with a solution for the printing problem. I do not see the somewhat more tedious work to print the footnotes as a major issue, because few people will actually want to print those (only in a few articles, mind you: I do not want to see scrollboxes appear in a considerable number of articles either). But I will further look into that print issue myself anyway. Meanwhile readers do have an opportunity to react, hopefully with a print solution and otherwise with arguments that can finally tilt a decision either way. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 27 Jul2007 10:32–11:01 (UTC)

I still believe the scroll box should be removed until the problems can be fixed, not left until someone convinces you it should be removed. — The Storm Surfer 21:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. You were bold in making the change. It has been reverted. And now we discuss. Please don't start a one-man edit war. --ElKevbo 22:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

ElKevbo, there is absolutely no reason to assume one must have consensus before a change. In this case most certainly not: removing the scrollbox prevents consensus to appear, which makes such removal on the contrary censorship. It is not because there are two people contesting the scrollbox and only my arguments here, that there would even be a majority: another contributor had created the scrollbox in the first place. The discussion has been made, "now we discuss" without any new argument and without undermining my arguments, shows that indeed censorship is being enforced and not an effort made to reveal a consensus. We need others to tilt a decision, as I suggested earlier, the scrollbox should be in for about a week to allow others to appear. — SomeHuman 28 Jul2007 00:09 (UTC)

Storm Surfer, there are no problems by having a scrollbox: there is only one minor problem (printing the footnotes) which is a very rare need and which can be done, only with a little more effort than without a scrollbox. Without the scrollbox there three problems:
1) for the entire page, difficult positioning of a particular part of the content by scrolling because of the unusual disproportion between the moving of the scroll glider and that of the article content;
2) requiring to attentively scrol past an unexpectedly lengthy portion of footnotes in which most readers are not interested (apart from jumping to them from an index, which works fine with the scrollbox);
3) the danger of overshooting (as a consequence of the first two problems) and not even spotting the subsections that immediately follow the footnotes subsection, while precisely those are the ones intended for further reading.
Those problems occur for nearly every reader, while the one printing problem may not even become a reality for a single person: the chances of anyone actually wanting to have a print-out of this article with all footnotes, are pritty dim - and even then, it can be done. — SomeHuman 28 Jul2007 00:23 (UTC)

Maintaining the stability of a featured article in the face of a lack of consensus to make such a significant change is in no way censorship. You're free to make a major change in a sandbox and point others to it to discuss and evaluate it. You're not welcome to continue to make disruptive changes and accuse other editors of censorship. --ElKevbo 01:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

You were not here to maintain that stability before. I am free to make the proper change, your accusation of it being disruptive is counter-argumented here above. I would not need to "continue" to make the same change over and over again, if you would not continue to revert it each time. Your telling me not to be welcome to make that one change, while you revert it, is WP:CENSORship (though obviously in this context not of content) and WP:OWNership, in particular by not allowing us to look at it in a week (as I explicitly asked) or two (as WP:OWN suggests). And your setting boundaries unsupported by WP guidelines to what I am allowed and under which circumstances, although I argumented my case here extensively, violates the WP:CONSENSUS#Note on use of discussion page policy (not a mere guideline, mind you).
There is absolutely no urgency in removing the scrollbox, as a severe hinder can definitely not be caused by it. There is no guideline whatsoever that states one should use a sandbox as a demonstration room before making the change to an article, featured or not. Sandboxes are for testing, and there is no need for that: it works precisely as expected (especially after my tweaking of the original scrollbox that had been properly introduced by User:Vb and of the template:Cite web that had initially caused a severe readability problem, wich is fully resolved). — SomeHuman 28 Jul2007 02:42–03:06 (UTC)

Adding a scroll box to the reference section breaks formatting, inhibits printing, and prevents users of screen readers from "viewing" an articles references. Scroll boxes are not to be used in references, and this has been made quite clear in the above discussion. I am removing the scroll box. Do not re-add the formatting; it is disruptive. - auburnpilot talk 14:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't affect screeen readers (negatively) as it's just CSS formatting. But I obviously agree with your other arguments and your main point. --ElKevbo 14:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

But of course the question (that relates to screen readers) is whether or not it actually does effect them. I don't have any evidence either way, personally, but clearly if it has a negative effect on them that's a very strong argument against its use. — The Storm Surfer 14:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The issue of screen readers was brought up in the deletion discussion on the talk page for the template that added a scrollbox. Of course that discussion is now deleted, but I'll go take a look and see if there was any real proof regarding the screen readers. - auburnpilot talk 15:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I asked the deleting admin RyanGerbil10 about undeleting that talk page on his talk page since it was referenced in the deletion discussion, but he has yet to respond. Perhaps you could undelete it yourself for the rest of us if you think that would be appropriate. As an aside, the three of you might have constructive comments to contribute to the Template:Scroll box TfD. — The Storm Surfer 15:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I just read through it, and the screen readers issue was only brought up briefly (one comment I believe). The issue was dismissed with the same reasoning of ElKevbo above; it's wrapped in CSS and shouldn't be an issue. - auburnpilot talk 15:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Am I missing something or did AuburnPilot just undelete the template? The here above 'Template:Scroll box' link by The Storm Surfer shows a template presentation page itself with a link (to the 'June 2007 discussion' on deleting the 'Template:Scroll box') that still works, and the 'TdD' link by The Storm Surfer still shows an earlier version of that discussion (before archiving). The template presentation's bold top comment about not using the template for citations had been introduced on 2007-06-27T19:20:52 by Mrzaius. As far as I can see, the only counter-argument for a long list of footnotes, appears to be the printing issue. My earlier argumentation above ranks the practical weight of that single problem (known but not making printing entirely impossible, and footnote printing can be assumed to be very rarely required) much lower than the three practical problems that always exist without a scrollbox. This discussion is not intended to set an example for all or many articles, we would not create a template (and we might set an inline comment "<--DO NOT COPY THIS footnote's style to other articles! (See talk page)-->" in the 'Belgium' article's Footnote section. Please realize, that now already having a few more opinions here is directly related to having had the scrollbox visible in the article; we should not keep this discussion amongst ourselves, hence it would still be better to reintroduce the scrollbox for a week unless the problem is shown to be more obtrusive than can so far be assumed: the more contributors that are drawn to this discussion, the higher the chance of finding a solution for the only problem we have. — SomeHuman 28 Jul2007 16:19 (UTC)

You are missing something. {{scroll box}} was never deleted. {{Scroll ref}}, which did the exact thing you are trying to do here, was deleted because of all the reasons we've listed above and more. Please do not reintroduce the template, as it is not appropriate, and breaks formatting. Belgium doesn't get to operate on a different set of rules. - auburnpilot talk 16:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

You may also be missing the fact that weighing the pros and cons of the scroll box is a somewhat subjective matter. You believe that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. ElKevbo, AuburnPilot, and I believe the opposite. — The Storm Surfer 16:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, I was confounded by the {{scroll box}} referring to the 'June 2007 discussion' which was not on deleting the 'Template:Scroll box' but instead on deleting the 'Template:Scroll ref', but that archived (Scroll ref) discussion is still or again readable as I had mentioned; you can navigate to it as I had done or click here.

• What I fail to find, is anything that makes AuburnPilot assume that I wish to introduce the template: I'm dead against creating a template because I do not want the scrollbox to appear in many articles; that was a major concern in the discussion on deleting 'Scroll ref'.
• I also fail to find AuburnPilot's "set of rules". This appears one of these cases for which Wikipedia:Ignore all rules still applies (if indeed there would be some "rules" regarding our topic): see the fifth of the WP:PILLARS.
• I wonder which and what "more" opposing arguments apply for the article Belgium with a scrollbox of height:338px defined; only the printing issues appear relevant, accessibility problems appear to have been misunderstood though if there are problems for e.g. disabled people or for specific pointing devices, these should be discovered and not just be assumed to exist: since several years, many sites have been using (often too) complex framesets and it would surprise me that solutions for as simple a thing as the suggested scrollbox would not yet be readily worked out.

This makes The Storm Surfer's comment most interesting. The subjectivity is however not some arbitrary feeling. To assess for oneself the final outcome about pros and cons, one must for each pro and for each con do two things: first determine the seriousness of a functionality problem (aka usability, con: usage impossible or how difficult, and extra time-consuming) and second determine how often the problem occurs (a theoretical assumption, or definitely for a limited number of users with specific needs or configurations, for a considerable number of users, for all readers). If specifically for the article Belgium you try to put numbers on a scale of 0 to 5 for usability and on a scale from 0 to 5 for occurance, for each different pro and each different con argument, what balancing (indeed subjective but for most people within practical limits) can then make anyone arrive at rejecting this scrollbox ? I have the impression one has been building solely on arguments that may have been relevant for the template but not for an exceptional usage of a discrete solution in just the very few articles that without a scrollbox suffer the specific problems by extremely lengthy footnotes (List of polio survivors, Belgium, United States, and possibly Russia, American Civil War, and perhaps the extremely long list of footnotes under which does not appear so much however, in List of Chicago Landmarks).

I also do not see anyone presenting a compelling reason to immediately kill the scrollbox on this article: its existence is the thing that brought people here and that opportunity is still valid, to discover possible problems regarding accessibility and also to possibly overcome the print problem (either by allowing all footnotes to be printed regardless of the scrollbox, or by having a scrollbox that can jump from/to its 338px to the full height taken by all the footnotes). — SomeHuman 28 Jul2007 20:00 (UTC)

You lack consensus to make this change to a featured article and that is a compelling reason to not make the change until you can gain consensus. We've presented non-trivial concerns, concerns for which the template that provided the functionality you are attempting to introduce into this article was deleted. "Others do something vaguely similar" is not an argument for doing it here.

Once again: discussion is fine and you were bold in making the initial change. It's been reverted and now we discuss the issue. Your stubborn refusal to follow the collaborative editing process successfully used throughout Wikipedia is disruptive, harmful to the editing process, and unacceptable. Please cease edit warring and continue discussion. You're welcome to file an RFC if you want to attempt to draw in other experienced editors. --ElKevbo 00:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

You lack assumption of good faith and accuse me falsely by 1) stating I refuse to follow the collaborative editing process successfully used throughout Wikipedia; 2) calling that assumed refusal stubborn. 3) calling my edits disruptive, harmful to the editing process, and unacceptable 4) stating that I was edit warring, which is what you had started. If you paid attention to the discussion instead of shutting me up, you should have realized that someone else had introduced the scrollbox (to which I had only made a minor adjustment) that you reverted. In other words, I was reverting your reverts that occurred before any other party had supported you, and when the two-in-favor/two-against situation had been shown, there was no reason to give in to you because there were no convincing arguments for such. I did not introduce the scrollbox again once there appeared more contributors here.
Once again, you claim "discussion is fine" and "now we discuss the issue", but by your tone apparently indicating you are aggrevated by my having further discussed the issue itself, and you repeat your arguments to be non-trivial - as if my arguments are.
I already had explained that FA status does not lend a special protection, and demonstrated it by showing that earlier FA reviews had noticed the use of a scrollbox (and then by a template) with inconsistent reactions but never paying much attention to it, and certainly not gathering the least consensus, about such scrollbox template being a hazard to FA status. That is nothing like the words you put into my mouth "Others do something vaguely similar", but in fact does reduce your compelling reason to no reason at all. I asked for a compelling reason based on a serious usability hazard; whether you and others may find the balance of arguments going another way than I see it, does not make these reasons compelling. Such should be demonstrated and not merely claimed. Hence my former comment that showed only printing issues to remain and printing not to be prohibited.
And an RFC is likely to do what most RFCs do: with a majority of three against (in this discussion only) one and a total lack of technical knowledge by the commentor as usual, and probably not spending the time to read all the arguments let alone evaluate these, I trust you to know the outcome as well as I do. Your tone and recommendation thus appear to say: the scrollbox is reverted and that's it, forget about it. What I try to do is finding technical solutions to overcome the objections against the footnotes scrollbox, because the latter offers a solution to several entirely unresolved problems in the few articles with an extremely lengthy footnotes (sub)section. Such technical solution is not likely to fall from the sky; having the scrollbox draws some attention here to the issue. — SomeHuman 29 Jul2007 01:55 (UTC)

Automated Review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 10 millimetres, use 10 millimetres, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 10&nbsp;millimetres.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km², and pounds -> lb.^[?]
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • is considered
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).^[?]
• Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: meter (A) (British: metre), metre (B) (American: meter), defence (B) (American: defense), organize (A) (British: organise), recognize (A) (British: recognise), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), grey (B) (American: gray), mold (A) (British: mould).
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 21:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

This automated report might cause more problems than it solves, unless verified by someone who is familiar with its quirks before putting the report in a talk page:

• The first [?] leads to "There should be an image to the right side of the lead (usually, it should be located in the first couple of lines or in an infobox/other template)." but it also says the script cannot recognize an image unless it is specified as "image:". In an infobox (or other template, I assume) it is almost never specified like that. Thus in this case the flag and coat of arms were not detected. In particular in templates, the script should look into values (behind "=" in the first six or so parameters) for ".png", ".svg" etc and shut up if such is there.
• Inconsistent British or American English: This message would only be helpful if the script would count typical BA and typical AE occurances, and when there is a considerable difference (e.g. >3:2 ratio) assume the smallest number as suspected mistakes and point them out. It appears that someone already changed 'kilometre' to 'kilometer' shortly after the report appeared here, although the article is (assumed to be) written in British English. If there is an oversight, we would like to know where.
• Also the reports of missing &nbsp; and of non-standard abbreviations, lack that pointing out and are too vague to assume where it could be. The script has already (assumedly) found them, it should make that information available by (to keep it simple) e.g. reporting the line number(s).
  Now I don't know whether there is a bug, oversight or shortcoming in the script (like the image thing), that for instance reports an error when it sees '10 square miles' (which does not need &nbsp;) or might not recognize some correct abbreviation; we could be looking for hours and even if we find and repair something, we would still not know whether we caught all errors that the script had caught.
• This must be intended sarcasm: "There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view." Certain phrases is the summum violation of WP:AWT and in this case, there is certainly no indication, let alone exact ones, which phrases are meant. Again: where?
• I'm not sure whether Marskell, who recently copyedited towards FA status and just claimed the article still to be broadly within FA criteria, can fully appreciate the last marked item of the semi-automated report.

— SomeHuman 30 Jul2007 21:37–22:27 (UTC) — P.S. : I dropped a note on Davnel03's talk page. SH

To answer some of your questions:

• The non-breaking spaces in this case should be before … (like this …)
• "Eddy Merckx is considered one of the greatest cyclists ever," requires a citation or specification of who considers him one of the greatest cyclists ever.
• The automated review always says "Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting" regardless of the quality of the text. It is automatically added. DrKiernan 08:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

National motto

The infobox presently lists the motto thusly:

Eendracht maakt macht (Dutch)
L'union fait la force (French)
Einigkeit macht stark (German)
"Strength through Unity"

Is "Strength through Unity" the way the Belgian government translates it into English? I ask because while it's semantically correct, it's not the closest translation of the Dutch/French/German versions. Funnyhat 05:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

See also Talk:Belgium/Archive1#Motto. The problem is that Belgium does not have an official English-language version (one may find different translations into English). In the three official languages, the meaning is three times a different one: In Dutch it says approximately The stickingworking together makes strength or power (macht denotes strength, especially in Flemish usage: "Hij heeft veel macht" can mean "He has a lot of strenght, the physical power to lift a heavy object of to squeeze hard" or "He is a man with a lot of (figurative) power". As far as I can judge, the French 'la force' can have either meaning as well, but the German (and assumedly most recent translation) apparently says makes strong without any connotation of possibly enforcing power upon someone, it rather denotes the capacity to resist to a force than to enforce. "Eendracht" means cooperation, the stickingworking together, in the sense of pulling at the same end of the rope. It does not mean the French or English "union", with a connotation of a (formal) joining into one body; on the contrary, the Dutch assumes several individuals, separate groups that work together but do not form a homogenous new group. The German "Einigkeit" is usually translated into English as 'unity', but one also finds 'union'; my sensitivity for this particular German term is not sufficient to judge its connotations.
Thus the closest middle-of-the-road translation that fits each of the three languages could be "Unity makes strenght". But this formulation does not quite feel like it could have been an originally English slogan. In English-language mottos one does not usually say "A makes B" but rather expresses that B (the goal) follows from A (what is required), formulated as "B through A". Just as in English one normally capitalizes both terms in a motto like this, we follow the English language style as if it were a truly English-language motto. In this we follow the three official languages making their very own statement in their very own style, without introducing any novelty and abiding what the mottos in all three official languages agree upon. I think that the inversion is also required to demonstrate this not to be a literal or strict translation; otherwise we would have too many reactions of readers stating that the English is not a proper translation of the one language a particular reader happens to understand. — SomeHuman 04 Aug2007 23:27–23:54 (UTC)

Cutting the table for now

	Official services rendered in the language of			Areas where the institutions for 3 groups of matters exercise power
	individuals & organisations expressing themselves			the Communities			the Regions (and their provinces)			the Federal State
	in Dutch	in French	in German	Flemish	French	German- speaking	Flemish	Walloon	Brussels- Capital
Dutch language area		facilities (12)	not required		-	-		-	-
French language area	facilities (4)		facilities (2)	-		-	-		-
Bilingual area Brussels-Capital			not required			-	-	-
German language area	not required	facilities (all 9)		-	-		-		-
	Within parentheses: number of municipalities with special status, i.e. required to offer facilities for speakers of the column's language. Facilities exist only in specific municipalities near the borders of the Flemish with the Walloon and with the Brussels-Capital Regions, and in Wallonia also in 2 municipalities bordering its German language area as well as for French-speakers throughout the latter area.

OK, RelHistBuff has suggested that he's upset this article was kept again at FAR (closed by Joelr31 this time). He has a point, as actionable objections were outstanding. Conversely, it's comprehensive, extensively cited, and the prose is still passable despite some blemishes. One thing is clear from the last review: no one understands the table. All of the uninvolved people who commented on it—me, Sandy, Rel, Ceoil—said it should be improved or removed. This isn't POV but a genuine inability to understand what it's saying. I've cut it on that basis, temporarily. First thing, could we break down what each of the sections is actually saying? "Official services rendered in the language of individuals & organisations expressing themselves." What does that mean? What do the numbers in brackets indicate? Step-by-step. Marskell 13:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

In fact perhaps it would be better to write text (i.e., some paragraphs) rather than reworking the table. A lot of the info is in the Municipalities with language facilities article so a summary would be sufficient. --RelHistBuff 19:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It cannot be summarized shortly enough for the article 'Belgium', that's why the table was created in the first place. And information is now indeed more clearly available here, because I did mention not only that article 'Municipalities with language facilities' but just day-before-yesterday also 'Language legislation in Belgium' in the 'See also' at top of the section that had the table, and I had put the information that existed more completely in the 'Belgium' article into the 'Main article' at top of the section. I cannot understand why four or five people should be taken seriously while they would be claiming that they cannot imagine what e.g. "Official services rendered in the language of individuals & organisations expressing themselves in Dutch" could possibly mean, and one or two who do not understand what the numbers in "brackets" might indicate – which round things were actually parentheses, but unless the copyeditor Marskell does not know the difference between what is usually called a bracket, and a parenthesis, Marskell wants to prevent someone making sense of the table that explicitly mentions the proper word under at the table: "Within parentheses: number of municipalities with special status, i.e. required to offer facilities for speakers of the column's language." Or perhaps Marskell has never seen an index-link between square brackets to the references section, of which the table has one – while the article that Markell copyedited has over a hundred of those?
Apparently, some people have difficulties in understanding crosstabs, though their method is assumed to make slightly complex relations easily understood. In Dutch there is a saying, here freely translated: "What use do a candle and binoculars bid, if the owl does not want to see it?" Notice that an owl has formidable eyesight even in the most dim light of the stars, but shuts its eyes in daylight; hence in Dutch, calling someone an owl is calling someone stubbornly stupid or stupidly stubborn. There remains the fact that no-one during the long, very long, and multiple discussions with Vb about the table, had ever found it too difficult; only Marskell and then three people with whom Marskell is likely used to work with. And Marskell forgot to mention that the people who claimed not to understand the table, had said so before several changes to the section and to the table had been made: this even after RelHistBuf's remark of the ninth, though it did not change his mind; Ceoil "From a casual (ie 10 minute) view" (on the entire article!) ten days ago; SandyGeorgia "clean up or remove that table" two weeks ago. Hence, the table is going back in, for the happy few who might have more than ten minutes to spend and are used to crosstab tables.
This is a very simple crosstab table:

	Areas where the institutions for 3 groups of matters exercise power
	the Communities			the Regions (and their provinces)			the Federal State
	Flemish	French	German- speaking	Flemish	Walloon	Brussels- Capital
Dutch language area		-	-		-	-
French language area	-		-	-		-
Bilingual area Brussels-Capital			-	-	-
German language area	-	-		-		-

And this should hardly be more difficult, with the 'Main', 'See also', mentioning of four language areas:

	Official services rendered in the language of			XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
	individuals & organisations expressing themselves
	in Dutch	in French	in German
Dutch language area		facilities (12)	not required
French language area	facilities (4)		facilities (2)
Bilingual area Brussels-Capital			not required
German language area	not required	facilities (all 9)
	Within parentheses: number of municipalities with special status, i.e. required to offer facilities for speakers of the column's language. Facilities exist only in specific municipalities near the borders of the Flemish with the Walloon and with the Brussels-Capital Regions, and in Wallonia also in 2 municipalities bordering its German language area as well as for French-speakers throughout the latter area.

If you know a better way to say that the authorities are legally obliged to render all official services for the public, to the individuals and to the organisations that form the public, in the single language belonging to the language area; except in the bilingual language area where forementioned services will be rendered in either of the two languages of the bilingual area that the individual or the organisation happens to prefer or in both these languages; and except in the other language areas within one of the legally defined municipalities with special status, in which some of the authorities are required to render a limited set of services to the individual or the organisation located in that particular municipality, on his or its request, in the official Belgian language explicitly recognized for that municipality and other than that of the language area, be my guest. Does anyone still prefer a "text" above the table, here is one, and still without specifying in which areas or in how many municipalities or where the municipalities are to be situated – and I guarantee that any noticable simplification will make it a false statement. Furthermore, strictly according to the law, the table could mention "no" instead of "not required", but in practice it is not at all unthinkable (especially in Flanders) for an individual representative of an authority, to be willing to render vocal information or assistance to an individual, in the language of the individual or in a language common to these both individuals; the conversation might thus be held in French, English, German or more rarely even in Spanish, Italian, ... , hence "not required".

Apparently several other administrators did have a glance at the latest ridiculous FAR that was held purely for POV reasons, and stayed out of the discussion except for closing that FARCE. Should I remind you that the table existed when the former FAR was closed with maintained FA status without ever having mentioned the table, that the latest FAR did not even mention the table during two weeks, until Vb plastered it for the so-manieth time at yet another place, inside the FAR space. Vb's forum-shopping obviously paid off but I do not accept finally finding one bunch of just a few comrades at that space to be convincing. — SomeHuman 15 Aug2007 03:34–04:42 (UTC)

Ah, I see you're as insufferable as ever SomeHuman. (Parentheses) may rightly be called 'round brackets' or simply 'brackets' in English; see Bracket. Let's also be clear about one thing: you are the only editor who has expressed satisfaction with the table. "Official services rendered in the language of individuals & organisations expressing themselves" is simply not good phrasing. How about simply "Official services rendered"? The extra words serve only to confuse. Why "yes" and "not required"? Doesn't "yes" and "no" make more sense? And what exactly is the difference between "yes" and "facilities"? When it says "yes" does that not mean facilities are offered? Sorry, I still don't get it. You can come up with another clever version of "it's not my problem that you're all stupid" but all that you're emphasizing to me is your own lack of good faith in dealing with other editors. Marskell 07:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You're as insufferable as ever, Marskell: You pretend you cannot read a crosstab table, and you do not read a text either. Here above I have

• explicitly said why it's "yes" and "not required" instead of "yes" and "no",
• in the text in italics shown that "yes" means rendering all official services (e.g. also streetname plates) for all individuals & organisations (without considering where there domicile might be), thus for the public; whereas "facilities" does not mean "yes" as you suggest but "no"/"not required", except for those individuals and organisations that are registered in one of the very few municipalities that offer only limited services (e.g. obtaining documents) in the language from outside the language area, and such only on their request and only from the one municipality in which they are registered.

Thus it should by now have been more than clear that "Official services rendered in French" would not be the same as "Official services rendered in the language of individuals & organisations expressing themselves in French".

I had stated that you had chosen the term 'brackets' even though the table mentions 'parentheses', and as nowadays 'brackets' (on WP nearly always unambiguously named braces, parentheses, or square [often without predicate] brackets) makes readers "usually" think of 'square brackets' rather than of 'round brackets', this deliberate deviation from the already correctly presented unambiguous term is not what people do when trying to bring clarity in a hard to understand matter. It is not my nature to have a lack of good faith in people, but I'm not daft enough to forget that some, very few, editors may not be as unbiassed as they pretend. As you have at multiple occasions proven not to properly read what I, even with complete argumentations, write, and what article references tell, while you all too eagerly jumped to all of Vb's opinions that were neither argumented nor referenced but even contradictory to article references, as the forementioned Dutch saying goes, it is not so much simple stupidity but rather stubborn bias that I have become forced to assume. And it is only your unargumented support of Vb's opinion that brought only the very few of your close companions to agree with the table having been gibberish before it was improved. The less clear and equally comprehensive original table had not even been mentioned by the previous FAR during its last five weeks (from May 19 till closing)the article had been scrutinized, and you cannot pretend that one might have overlooked the table's existence: it's rather visible, don't you think. — SomeHuman 15 Aug2007 10:34 (UTC)

Both the 'yes' and the '×' in the tables above were replaced with after next comment by RelHistBuff.

Please note that I read the article first before looking at the FAR comments. I was completely confused by the table. I only partly understood what the table was getting at only after someone put in a link to the Municipalities article during the FARC phase. I then realised what was meant by "Official services" (there isn't any definition of that which is fundamental in understanding the table). I am still not sure what "facilities" mean. From the Municipalities article it seems to be schools and official documents and communications, but there is no explanation in the main article. In each table cell, you explained the difference between "yes" and "facilities" and "not required" here in this talk page, but it is not obvious to the reader of the article. Your italicised text is, in my opinion, more understandable! Could we try a combination of explanatory text with the first table?

As for the second table, I find it is even more confusing. What does "Areas where the institutions for 3 groups of matters exercise power" mean? The rows are defined to be geographical areas and the columns are the three-tiered authorities, that I understand. But then what do the "x"s and hyphens mean in the table cells? --RelHistBuff 11:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? Did you never see such? A table is not a nice looking box to write sentences and words in, you know. In cross tabulations, one usually uses either figures, e.g. 79% or 180 [matches], or simple symbols, e.g. x (applicable, exists, present, yes, available, known, full correlation, vote [see ballot]) and - (not applicable, none, absent, no, unknown, not available, no correlation); the precise term would depend on the subject but is not shown in such table because the simple symbols give a far better quick overview. It's an elementary school thing, I would think that anyone knows that, else, of course the table appears as gibberish. Anyway, I'm glad with your constructive attitude. The x crossmark is like a v checkmark, if there's a small image for such (a v with a longer right line going up), we could use that instead, and I replaced them now with the latter in the 3 tables above, if you think people are more familiar with it; an mdash '—' or ndash '–' could be used instead of the shorter dash '-' but I do not think that to be better. Each 'yes' is now for consistency replaced with the v checkmark as well, it makes much clearer that the language areas with only a few municipalities with 'facilities', are in general rather more like 'not required' than like the apparently different checkmarked ones.
"Areas where the institutions for 3 groups of matters exercise power" tries to express that the table shows that each of the theoretically seven constitutional institutions that are empowered for three groups of matters (Community matters, Regional matters and Federate matters), exercises its authority in the language area(s) that are marked in the institution's column. Nevertheless, the figure 'seven' should not be expressed because two of the seven actually merged, or more precisely the Flemish Region's powers, from the moment these came to exist, have been left to be exercised by the Flemish Community, as the constitution allows. Thus there are "only" six actual parliaments and governments. But the scheme of the table remains correct, because the single Flemish body can exercise its power for regional matters only in the Flemish Region, which coincides with the Dutch language area, while that Flemish body can exercise it power for community matters within the geographical boundaries of the Flemish Community which includes that same language area as well the language area that constitutionally gives equally full weight for the Dutch and for the French language. Specific offices of the Flemish administrations may mainly or solely handle community matters, or regional matters, or may even handle both aspects because one has to answer to the same government anyway.
I do not consider rendering the 'facilities' in text, because the matter is far too sensitive and legally strongly disputed, in the past and at present, with quite different viewpoints on either side. That forces us to give a very lengthy and impossibly accurate text unless we want disputes going on forever. The table however, does not depict anything controversial. It does have the merit of showing the existence of the facilities and the links should then do their work for the interested reader. In case the linked articles (about language legislations, municipalities with facilities) are not clear or good enough, those should be improved; but that is rather outside the frame of this talk page. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 15 Aug2007 19:08–22:12 (UTC)

Somehuman, have you not thought that when various uninvolved editors tell you something doesn't make sense, that it probably doesn't make sense? Your response continues to be "you're stupid", which really isn't helpful. I don't get it. I never set out to antagonize you but the only attitude I've received is your impugning my good faith. This article, like all Wiki articles, should be intuitable to the casual reader. The table (along with some of the prose) clearly is not. You're explaining all of this minutiae on talk but the whole point is that the reader isn't going to be aware of the minutiae when reading. Perhaps it is better to come up with a prose paragraph explaining the table info? We'll lose detail but increase understanding.

As a last point, the term 'bracket', stated alone, refers to round brackets in colloquial English. 'Bracket' does not usually make people think of 'square brackets' but the regular round variety, according to my years of speaking the language. Sorry, just had to be pedantic on that one. I've not claimed to be William Faulkner with the prose here, or that my copyedits are perfect, but what this article desperately needs is a native speaker to regularly audit it—to be told off, wrongly, on points of orthography and grammar is a bloody annoyance. Marskell 22:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Marskell, I had tried to replace the table with the following paragraph because. From my POV, this paragraph has exactly the same content as the table but is understandable. This paragraph has been suppressed by SomeHuman for some obscure reason.

The above mentioned linguistic regions the Regions and Communities are based on are geographical areas with a very precise linguistic status. In these regions official services are rendered in the language of individuals and organisations expressing themselves in the official language of the region. In the Dutch, French and, German regions the official language is Dutch, French, and German respectively. In the bilingual region of Brussels both French and Dutch are official languages on an equal footing. In these regions the official languages are used for contacts with public authorities, as regards administration, the law, education and labour relations in companies. However there are some exceptions: in some few municipalities bordering the linguistic regions —the so-called communes with special status or communes with linguistic facilities— the language of the neighbouring region can be used to contact local authorities.

Please tell me what you think about it. Vb 13:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

With the exception of some corrections needed in punctuation and grammar, the paragraph is understandable and in my opinion, preferable. Marskell, what do you think? --RelHistBuff 13:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry guys, but you should never believe Vb when he states my reason to be "some obscure" one. Just read my (several) arguments I gave long ago. Yes, find my arguments yourself between all the repeated discussions that Vb over and over again pops into all sections of this talk page (and elsewhere). They're not about mere punctuation; and in fact Vb is once again trying to lure you into POV French-language pushing onto the English language, while Vb does know it: he has read about that and understood it very well.
If RelHistBuff finds Vb's text with "official services are rendered in the language of individuals and organisations expressing themselves in..." clear enough, than it is just as clear in the table. Marskell or RelHistBuf, if a crosstab with v-checkmarks indicating which columnn and row get a match, is above your understanding, then there is only the Simple Wikipedia for what you want to make of this article.
I am not calling you particularly stupid, Marskell, (stupidly stubborn, perhaps), but if just a few readers cannot understand the basics of a crosstab, which is abundantly used and generally simply understood, they should not consider themselves so great geniuses that no other readers possibly could understand the table. Apparently you and RelHistBuff have a better mind for fully written text, not for schemes. For many people it is just the opposite.
Are you two still not seeing that Vb never presents arguments but only "I think this is POV" and "I think this is good". Vb never produces arguments for anything being "POV" or "good" and certainly does not support anything by references, but keeps constantly trolling and by reverts pressing that burden onto others, and then still edits texts away from what the references say. There are always going to be people that fall for the false "there are two sides, the truth will lie in the middle" and then "Oh this nice guy starts discussions with a polite 'Dear SomeHuman', he must be more right". Guys, start reading this entire talk page, carefully looking at what is actually said about the topic instead of letting yourself be influenced by style, and think about what is there. So far, one person took that trouble and then addressed me: "I understand your patience is gone now, after all those ridiculous discussion above. Respect actually for staying so calm". — SomeHuman 16 Aug2007 18:17–18:29 (UTC)

Suggestion, following RelHistBuf's earlier advice:

For unilingual language areas, the Law determined in which municipalities a person can request a specific service belonging to a limited subset of all the official ones for the public, in the municipality having registered this inhabant to be rendered to this individual in a language of a nearby Belgian language area. For those twenty-seven municipalities with special status offering these language facilities, their numbers per relevant language area for its extraneous language(s) are in underneath table, which further shows where each constitutional institution has authority for the matters that belong to its level:

	Official services rendered in the language of			Areas where the institutions for the 3 groups of matters exercise power
	individuals expressing themselves			the Communities			the Regions (and their provinces)			the Federal State
	in Dutch	in French	in German	Flemish	French	German- speaking	Flemish	Walloon	Brussels- Capital
Dutch language area		in 12 municipalities (limited to 'facilities')	-		-	-		-	-
French language area	in 4 municipalities (limited to 'facilities')		in 2 municipalities (limited to 'facilities')	-		-	-		-
Bilingual area Brussels-Capital			-			-	-	-
German language area	-	in all 9 municipalities (limited to 'facilities')		-	-		-		-
	"Facilities" exist only in specific municipalities near the borders of the Flemish with the Walloon and with the Brussels-Capital Regions, and in Wallonia also in 2 municipalities bordering its German language area as well as for French-speakers throughout the latter area.

While some may find it difficult to understand the text in which every comma has meaning, they can rely on the table; and vice versa. — SomeHuman 16 Aug2007 21:02 – 17 Aug2007 10:35 (UTC)

Vb's paragraph is more understandable than the table above. The problem is that English syntax requires that sentences be written in the form "subject-verb-object" to be clearly understandable. That isn't true of any part of the table. Just taking the first sentence, for example: "For unilingual language areas, the Law determined in which municipalities a person can request a specific service belonging to a limited subset of all the official ones for the public, in the municipality having registered this inhabant to be rendered to this individual in the language of a nearby Belgian language area." There are half-a-dozen subjects, at least five verbs and a similar number of objects. That is why no-one understands it—it is not possible to make syntactical sense out of this arrangement of words. If you dislike Vb's paragraph so much you have to re-write the table so that the meaning is clear—for example, by sticking to simple sentences of the form "subject-verb-object", as in Vb's paragraph. DrKiernan 10:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm tired of explaining that one should read my criticism on Vb's text. It is simple because it gives false information and is fundamentally incomplete, and it also introduces a POV terminology. It cannot be put in this article because everything in it is already put in words in this article. I am not the one who initially suggested to try and put the correct information in text: it's too intricate and too controversial, hence only a table and a link to the article on the municipalities with language facilities should do better here.
To my text, I just added an index to a footnote reference saying "Footnote: Apart from the municipalities with language facilities for individuals, the French language area has three more municipalities in which the second language in education legally has to be either Dutch or German, whereas in municipalities without special status this would also allow for English.".— SomeHuman 17 Aug2007 11:37 (UTC)

I did not say that Vb's paragraph was preferable or that it should be included. I said it was "more understandable" in a linguistic sense. Your version remains incomprehensible. DrKiernan 11:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

To reiterate, my criticism is wholly one of style, not of substance. DrKiernan 11:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I know; the problem is that an easily understood text is going to be far too lengthy to possibly be acceptable for this article, a shorter alternative must be a compact legalese as I suggested above. I think the modification of the table as now presented here above, mainly because of its stating the 'facilities' to be limited and to exist in the specified number of municipalities only, should be clear enough without a text. Only a line like

By Law, inhabitants of 27 municipalities can ask limited services to be rendered in a neighbour language, forming 'facilities' for them.

should then come immediately underneath the boxed table at top of the line that is here above. Links will have to do the rest for interested readers. Hence, I suggest to put this in:

	Public services rendered in the language of			Areas where the institutions for the 3 groups of matters exercise power
	individuals expressing themselves…			the Communities			the Regions (and their provinces)			the Federal State
	…in Dutch	…in French	…in German	Flemish	French	German- speaking	Flemish	Walloon	Brussels- Capital
Dutch language area	Y	in 12 municipalities (limited to 'facilities')	-	Y	-	-	Y	-	-	Y
French language area	in 4 municipalities (limited to 'facilities')	Y	in 2 municipalities (limited to 'facilities')	-	Y	-	-	Y	-	Y
Bilingual area Brussels-Capital	Y	Y	-	Y	Y	-	-	-	Y	Y
German language area	-	in all 9 municipalities (limited to 'facilities')	Y	-	-	Y	-	Y	-	Y
	By Law, inhabitants of 27 municipalities can ask limited services to be rendered in a neighbour language, forming 'facilities' for them. 'Facilities' exist only in specific municipalities near the borders of the Flemish with the Walloon and with the Brussels-Capital Regions, and in Wallonia also in 2 municipalities bordering its German language area as well as for French-speakers throughout the latter area.

Note that the indexed references (with in article consecutive numbers matching with those hereunder) state:

[1] Footnote: The Constitution set out seven institutions each of which can have a parliament, government and administration. In fact there are only six such bodies because the Flemish Region merged into the Flemish Community. This single Flemish body thus exercises powers about Community matters in the bilingual area of Brussels-Capital and in the Dutch language area, and about Regional matters only in the latter.
[2] Footnote: Apart from the municipalities with language facilities for individuals, the French language area has three more municipalities in which the second language in education legally has to be either Dutch or German, whereas in its municipalities without special status this would also allow for English. See e.g. Lebrun, Sophie (2003-01-07). "Langues à l'école: imposées ou au choix, un peu ou beaucoup" (in French). La Libre Belgique's web site. Retrieved 2007-08-17. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link).

— SomeHuman 17 Aug2007 12:42–18:39 (UTC)

Dear SomeHuman,

Please tell me why the paragraph I wrote is not NPOV. I really do my best to write a neutral understandable prose and really don't enjoy your repeated insults. I agree that my prose is not the best brilliant English but only allowing brilliant writer s to participate to WP is simply a strong biasing of WP. According to several native English speakers it also seems your English is not brilliant either. Does the Belgium article need to be written in Germish? The CRISP is a official office of the Walloon Region. If they use the word "commune" for "municipality", this is their right to do so. My Harrap's dictionary French-English provides the translation "Commune. Adm. Jur. Commune." Commune is maybe not the most common translation to the French word commune (because the French word commune is older than the French Revolution which replaced the word commune by municipalité) but commune is however a correct synonim (in particular in the Belgian context where Gemeen and Gemeinde (Dutch and German) have also the same etymology (putting something in common - was gemeinsam haben). Vb 08:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

(remove indent) Comments: I agree with you that CRISP is a reliable source. I disagree about the use of the word "commune" in the English portion of the text. If you look it up in the dictionary, you may find that the word in English could have the same meaning in French, but in normal usage among average readers, the first thought that would come to mind is a place where people practise socialism. I also have a suggestion. At least two English speakers have noted that Vb's paragraph is understandable (and one, i.e., me, prefers the paragraph over the table). So I suggest taking Vb's paragraph as a starting basis and the two of you work with it (and I should not need to add "in good faith"). --RelHistBuff 16:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I too prefer text over table in this case. It's hard to grasp a "big picture" from SomeHuman's table, there are too many cases with non-obvious relationships with each other. Such complexity comes, for instance, from the partial redundancy between the 4 rows and the 3 region columns. Also, the 4 rows represent an administratively unnatural split of Belgium (they're a mixture of regional and communitarish division) with non-official and IMO misleading denominations (why describe the Flanders region as "the dutch-speaking area" ? Isn't Dutch also spoken in Brussels ? Is French spoken nowhere in Flanders ?).

Also I wonder why such a heavy formulation as "Official services rendered in the language of individuals & organisations expressing themselves in [the other language]" is necessary. Why not "Official services provided in [the other language] on demand". Or more neutrally and concisely "Official services may be provided in [the other language]." Or see below. (Of course the fine print of facilities has to be explained somewhere, but probably not in such a short paragraph whose aim is to describe the various linguistical-regional configurations across the country.)

But I think Vb's paragraph is not precise enough. e.g. "the dutch, french and german regions" division is as misleading as SomeHuman's.

My take at it would be :

The combination of Regions and Community makes for some complexity; with respect to administrative language use, the country gets divided as follows:

• in the Flanders region, Dutch is the unique official language; in a few municipalities next to Brussels or Wallonia, French language facilities apply.
• in the Brussels capital region, French and Dutch are the two official languages on equal footing;
• in the Walloon Region, not counting the German-speaking territory, French is the official language; in a few municipalities next to Flanders, Dutch language facilities apply; in two municipalities next to the German-speaking territory, German facilities apply;
• the German-speaking territory belongs to the Walloon region. German is here the primary language, and French facilities apply everywhere.

This division is exactly SomeHuman's, but with hopefully clear and less misleading denominations.

This proposal is partly redundant with previous paragraphs of the article and I don't claim my statements to be fully accurate (nor perfect english), they need to be reviewed. And another short paragraph should expand a bit on what facilities are. -- --FvdP 18:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. one should probably add that outside the "facilities" areas, the administration is monolingual (bilingual in Brussels). --FvdP 18:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Vb's text is nonsense. That makes its "understandability" utterly irrelevant. If it were merely a matter of some poor English or a minor inaccuracy, I gladly would have helped out.
"The above mentioned linguistic regions the Regions and Communities are based on are geographical areas with a very precise linguistic status."
Of course, invariably we see the French language being pushed in where English belongs: There are far more native speakers of English capable of reading French than of understanding Dutch, whether actually translating or only using sources on this topic; the texts in French are also more abundant. Thus one can expect a certain influence from French appearing in English texts. And yet, 75% of English texts use "language areas" rather than "linguistic regions", simply because the first is English: The Belgian constitution is not particularly interested in studying the intricacies of the languages themselves, as 'linguistic' tends to suggest. More importantly, the correct "language areas" cannot be confounded with the Flemish or the Walloon Regions, which awfully sound like linguistic regions to most people. That has been pointed out to Vb numerous times but Vb can be very insisting in pushing POV.
"The above mentioned linguistic regions the Regions and Communities are based on" (apart from a strictly correct but hardly understandable phrasing without a "that" between 'regions' and 'the Regions') 1) refers to the text not far above, and 2) repeats that text as well, without adding anything new yet.
So, "linguistic regions" aka "language areas" are "geographical areas", we learn, and they have a "linguistic status". How informative, who would have guessed? But there is even more information here: the "linguistic" aka "language" areas have a "very precise linguistic status". Indeed, each area has one official standard language, or two. Really unique in the world, that is. And the fact of a linguistic/language thing having a linguistic status, how revealing. We surely must mention that (over and over again) in the article. Thus we have "language areas with a very precise linguistic status", which is then certainly not the case for the "municipalities with special status" as the municipalities with language facilities are officially called. Someone is trying to confuse readers here, guys. And that is what the table does not permit, hence some readers might understand instead of just having the feeling that they were able to read something. I here described only the opening sentence of Vb's understandable text, for a featured article.
Whether everyone understands the table or not, its current version is more informative and less confusing than earlier versions that had troubled people, it is quite accurate, (I'll show such regarding FvdP's comment this evening), it does not bring any kind of NPOV, and does not contain bad English. Vb's idea that we all must accept CRISP to be the leading authority on the English language, while continuing to revert an understandable, accurate and appropriate phrase on the "common heritage" retained at the federal level as if the source, the federal government, would be POV (and more than so than CRISP) while several contributors stated that there is nothing wrong with that sentence, only shows how strongly Vb wants to force POV into the article; his words on a talk page may appear constructive, his actions on the article often tell another story. I would appreciate if people here would finally understand that some people are good at reading texts but less able to understand schemes, while others easily understand tables but have problems in understanding complex matters from mere sentences. The article should not be specifically aiming at only one part of the public. — SomeHuman 21 Aug2007 05:33 (UTC)

Undoubtedly, my native language may have an influence, occasionally, on my English. Grammatically, it simply happens to be closer to English than French is, as both are Germanic languages. Nevertheless, no other language of this group, arguably not even the Brussels dialect, has such a large number of loan-words from French. If I hated French as Vb seems to think, I'd be writing mainly on the Dutch-language Wikipedia. But Vb's usage of the term "Germish" does need an example, and more than just one, considering the number of my contributions. Vb never stops his attempts to put "Franglais" in, even after having been asked repeatedly, e.g. for 'linguistic regions'. If I would not have to return here all the time to the often stupid and generally futile discussions (I'm not referring to FvdP who just arrived on this talk page, but to months of the same things being senselessly repeated and wild accusations of POV by the only two people who have shown to express such in the article), I could much more usefully help out by finding and translating sources or improving articles.
— SomeHuman 21 Aug2007 05:33 (UTC)

Whereas I had decided earlier not to go into DrKiernan's comment on my grammar because it hardly helps the article, and only replied accordingly, Vb's sneer on my English forces me to show DrKiernan to have made three mistakes, or at least to have suggested these to have been made by him. I'm not going into all details, I'll just give a few hints: English syntax does not require the form "subject-verb-object", but only that order; in front, in between, or behind there can be other elements (in this case several of the type <location/limitation> and one of the type <manner>). Furthermore, the subject may include an entire subsentence, as may the object, even both can have one each. It generally makes reading tougher, and hardly suitable for the article, as I agreed with, but it is still correct English syntax, and typical for what I called legalese because it allows an unusual unambiguous accuracy. DrKiernan claimed that such a "subject-verb-object" "isn't true of any part of the table" (he meant the text just above the actual table). It is in fact true for all sentences/subsentences, though for both deepest subsentences (if one can call a phrase with a verb that is not quite conjugated, a sentence) the subject and verb are rather implied or indicated, correctly though. For instance, within the extremely long object of the main sentence, there is a subsentence of which the object is nearly just as long; the latter object has a subsentence with as subject "a specific service belonging to a limited subset of all the official ones for the public", followed with the <location/limitation> clause "in the municipality having registered this inhabant". Both last quotations consist of an implied sentence: "a specific service that belongs to (a subset)" (the latter is the only object with a dative function, btw), and "the municipality that has registered this inhabitant. I am not familiar with all English terms about grammar, thus implied might conventionally be expressed quite differently, but I think I can analyse a sentence, or create one properly. I appreciate a native speaker's criticism on my contributions mainly for my sometimes inadequate sense about using a gerund or an infinitive, and for a possibly incorrectly chosen preposition, not to mention typos or mistakes being caused by rephrasing without noticing all grammatical consequences. Oh, did anyone notice my tendency to write lengthier-than-average sentences? I'm a bit old-fashioned about that, because it gives better control on precision, accuracy, and on showing proper relations, compared to modernistic keep your sentences as short as possible of which I particularly like the last two words. Perhaps I'm mistaken, and then we'll soon hear of a Thai-language work of literature causing its author to win a Nobel Prize.
— SomeHuman 21 Aug2007 05:33 (UTC)

We believe in your English ability. However, you seem to be unable to discern that despite the ability, the table is insufficient for the comprehension of the average reader. At least three anglophones and two francophones have mentioned this in this subsection of the talk page (I won't mention how many more anglophones have also commented on this in the previous FAR). So I suggest Vb, SomeHuman, and FdvP work on a paragraph. The anglophones here can assist in correcting punctuation and grammar. Consensus is a policy on wikipedia. --RelHistBuff 06:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I can tell you how many made a comment on the table at the second featured article review that closed on 2007-08-10:

• "Please clean up or remove that table; it is gibberish and unintelligible to someone not familiar with Belgium". SandyGeorgia 2007-08-02
• "I would not have a substantive objection to make about its current form, its good, though I did not try and understand the table discussed above." Ceoil 2007-08-06

The only others that made a comment on the table are the same as here: Vb and Marskell of course, and on 2007-08-09 RelHistBuff. And on this entire talk page only two others (I'll come to FvdP later on) while the table was still in a much poorer state:

• "Also I think the table is too complicated indeed, it could be used in a more specified article, but a simple explanation should satisfy here." Dionysos1 2007-06-05
• "The in-depth explanation then goes to a special article. For instance, the above table belongs in the article Communities, regions and linguistic regions of Belgium and not in the article Belgium." JoJan 2007-06-05

There has been no comment on the understandability of the table by one who clearly had a look; his remark cannot be rendered without object because 'facilities' is also in English the term for this (in a table or in text):

• "Given that "facilities" in English is widely used to refer to "Toilets" it's actually rather funny. :) DrKiernan 2007-08-08"; and the same DrKiernan later mentioned "Vb's paragraph is more understandable than the table above." and "I did not say that Vb's paragraph was preferable or that it should be included. I said it was 'more understandable' in a linguistic sense. Your version remains incomprehensible." while also his remark on 'the table' referred only to the very complex sentence above the disputed table, shown together in the page-wide white box.

The table had been introduced on 19~20 May while the article was under scrutiny by a first featured article review. Vb started questioning the table already on 2007-05-23. That version was quite different from what it has become after a series of improvements, in its titles and the footnote immediately underneath the table, its layout, the use of checkmarks, and especially the replacement of the mysterious "facilities (12)" style by "in 12 municipalities (only facilities)". That does make the table quite understandable, for most readers. I do not know how FvdP came to this, but every other person that ever criticized the table had found it being pushed under the nose by Vb; no-one had made a remark on it before, not a single reviewer of the featured article review that closed on 2007-06-21 while that table had been there in plain view for the whole month of the review. Even SandyGeorgia who was quite actively working at the article would not mention the table before the later FAR, upon Vb displaying the table within that new FAR space. That means that even the older and far less clear version did not strike anyone as particularly difficult to understand. That proves that removing the table as if it were too unclear, is highly POV. If one harrasses people long enough and on different platforms, one is bound to finally find a few guys supporting ones point of view. That is called forum-shopping and it is why I do not recognize the opinions of five people on an article with the table in it for as long as three months during which it passed a featured article review twice, as a "consensus" representing the Wikipedia community as a whole. I'm sure there are more people who do not know how to interpret the table, and that can be said of any paragraph that would replace it, and of any paragraph in any section that is in the article. But for a considerable part of the community, the table can be more clarifying than any text within reasonable length for this article.

The last person commenting on the table, is then FvdP who is not as much confused by the table, at the contrary: it is the table that at least started to make FvdP wonder, because FvdP had a completely wrong understanding of an important aspect of the Belgian institutionalization, as is shown by, "partial redundancy between the 4 rows and the 3 region columns. Also, the 4 rows represent an administratively unnatural split of Belgium (they're a mixture of regional and communitarish division) with non-official and IMO misleading denominations (why describe the Flanders region as "the dutch-speaking area". Clearly, FvdP does not realize that the "mixture" of "non-offical" and in FvdP's opinion "misleading" denominations are in fact article 4 of the Belgian Constitution which names all 4 language areas precisely as they are on the left in the table (in the constitution's three official language versions, the unofficial English translation is abominable).
Note that FvdP not only saw the table but also the attempts to put it in sentences, thus that is not going to do the trick of making things understandable for everyone either. FvdP has a logical point though, I too do not see the absolute need for maintaining the language areas as one could just as well consider the geographical boundaries of the regions to determine which places are to use which official language(s), the language areas could become redundant, provided the Minister President of the German-speaking Community would have his wish come true by giving that community its own Region. But such is not the case. That funny mixture is mentioned in the article in the paragraph "The overlapping boundaries of the Regions and Communities...". And it is the main reason of existence for the table: showing both the relevance of the language areas for the official languages (and where and for whom exceptions occur) and their relevance for the two kinds of administrative subdivisions (having their parliaments, governments, and matters they are authorized for), and where and why they overlap. That is the 'logic' of the present Belgian federal kingdom. I'm quite sure that now, FvdP will like to take another look at the table: without his misconception, it may be a lot more revealing. To say it simply: the four rows are not a mixture, they existed long before the Regions and official Communities, and it was according to those language areas that the latter were created as a compromise with two contradictory ideological viewpoints in mind: divide the territory so that people need to speak the language of an area with fixed borders and do not have to worry which language will prevail in the future (a major Flemish concern), nor do they have to learn several languages in the larger regions (a major French-speakers' concern), or on the other hand let people choose which language they use, wich renders more respect for the individuals (and mainly in the interest of the people in Brussels, and in the municipalities with language facilities - where the first concept causes the second to have only very limited facilities).
I think this is rather clearly put into words and reasonably objective too, but I would absolutely refuse to try and find the proper sources that would be required to put it in a featured article: there will also be sources stating or claiming the opposite of every mentioned detail and we would have to show nearly all the different positions (with different viewpoints even within each of the three regions, and of course different viewpoints on each side of the language border.) That can't be done within the scope of this article.The importance of showing the exceptions formed by 'facilities' cannot be emphasized enough: they prove that the forementioned ideological viewpoint with respect to individuals, though limited, was not entirely overlooked by the regionalization. Recently, there have been European investigations of and disputes about the situation of speakers of French as a minority language and the typically Belgian solution has been questioned. I start to suspect an interest in keeping the correct information as presented by an overview, out of the article that then depicts Belgium as a country having put the regional territoriality principle and regional territorial integrity completely above the personal principle and human rights. It may also be relevant because a strictly territorial subdivision would facilitate separatism. And the municipalities with facilities as well as the Brussels situation have been major issues amongst the disputes in Belgium. Intended or not, that omission is not acceptable. That is why I insist on having the table: the purely factual information is there for the readers who have given the several ways to approach the Belgian problems a moment of thought; for others it will remain just as much gibberish as all information appears to a rather uninterested reader. As a sidenote: the contradiction between rights based on territory and rights based on persons, has become a growing international issue and, perhaps not coincidentally, Belgium has played a major early role in this evolution, see e.g. Universal jurisdiction.

In its present state, the by SandyGeorgia requested cleanup having been done and having tackled the issues brought forward here above by RelHistBuff later on ("Official services", "facilities" clearly existing only in few municipalities and clear checkmarks instead of "yes" and no longer mentioning "not required", clear checkmarks instead of confusing "x"s), it can certainly no longer hurt the article - even before all modifications and tweaks, it had not in the least been criticized by the eight reviewers and commentators of the first FAR that closed with FA status (Arnoutf, SandyGeorgia, Tony, LuciferMorgan, Vb (though here on talk page already opposing the table), Marskell, Casliber, maclean) - and it is not substandard, now not even below FA class any more. The high relevance to Belgium and the usefulness for possibly understanding what makes its federalization so complex (which is what a lot of people have heard about) and why, do not allow us to present the table only in the 'Communities, regions and language areas of Belgium'. If a very short introduction or explanatory sentence could help (I just tried it with a simple one), or something could still be improved about the precise wording of the table titles at the top, I remain open for suggestions, but the table should definitely not be ousted. — SomeHuman 22 Aug2007 01:14 (UTC)

P.S.: The somewhat lengthy title in the table's left part, was chosen to accomodate for the main language and for the exception of the 'facilities', and does not suggest that the official language in a language area could be enforced on people for other matters than dealing with the authorities. The personal freedom on the language being used is constitutionally warranted by article 30: "The use of languages in Belgium is free; only the law can rule on this matter, and only for acts of the public authorities and for legal matters." — SomeHuman 22 Aug2007 05:08 (UTC)

Dear SomeHuman,

The goal of an encyclopaedia is to explain words. If serious sources use those words they have to appear in it. I agree with you that the wording "language area" makes more sense than "linguistic region" however the words linguistic region are used by authoritative sources (English translation of the Belgian Constitution on internet, CRISP, and others) so, while I agree we should use mostly the words language area we shouldn't forbit some editors to use the words linguistic region. In particular someone reading the site of the CRISP could wonder what linguistic region or communes with linguistic facilities mean. He would be quite surprised if he would not find any definition on WP. The goal of WP is to be usefull not to push some wording because they appear more often when googling around. Here I use the words "linguistic region" and "commune with facilities" because I cite the CRISP source: not because I want to push any French POV. You say the paragraph I wrote is meaningless. You may be right. My answer is: then your table is meaningless too, because IMO both things have the same meaning! I don't see any difference in contents. Vb 08:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Another note to SomeHuman. You have spent so much time and typing text in this talk page explaining the table. But so far no one (other than you) has found the table preferable. If you would put in the same amount of effort and work with your other Wikipedia colleagues, then you could be finished by now with a good paragraph acceptable by all. If this carries on much longer, then I would suggest that someone start with the dispute resolution process maybe by a Request for Comment or by bringing in a third opinion. --RelHistBuff 12:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

To Vb: If you would only use the French-derived terms here on the talk page, or in an important quote between "..." in a reference, I would not object. This is the article 'Belgium' and it does not need to have each common term accompanied with less commonly used terms for the same subject. The article on the language areas does mention 'lingusitic regions' to occur. If people do not know what a linguistic region or a language area is, they can find out by putting 'Language areas of Belgium' or 'Linguistic regions of Belgium' in the search box on the left of each WP page, both redirect to the same article. That is normal procedure for this encyclopaedia.
Not without reason, did I call the English version of the constitution 'abominable', in particular the relevant first paragraph of article 4: "Belgium has four linguistic regions: The French-speaking region, the Dutch-speaking region, the bilingual region of Brussels Capital and the German-speaking region. Each «commune» (county borough) of the Kingdom is part of one of these linguistic regions." Notice not only the continued usage of the French 'linguistic regions' and 'region' (causing ambiguity with the Regions in English as in French, though related to a language it is not the more common term in English, and neither the Dutch nor the German versions of the constitution introduce that problem), but it also uses the French 'commune', knowing it not to be a normal English word in the sense of a municipality: it would not be between quotes if it were considered as normal in English as commune is in French. The writer even found it necessary to put the 'translation' (and not even a good one) between parentheses. And even the details are pure French: that type of angled doublequotes is quite unusual in English but is the most common style in French. It is so bad that I would even suggest to eliminate it from the article, leaving only the official versions and for the readers who can only understand English rather provide a link to the article Constitution of Belgium that renders all the for our interest required articles in English (any mistakes there can at least be corrected). Already three people pointed out that 'commune' is not the proper translation for the French term, but I also know nearly all French-speakers to keep using it. It are not French-speakers here or at CRISP that determine what English should be like. It has enough French loanwords as it is, municipalité is French as well, isn't it? — SomeHuman 22 Aug2007 20:25 (UTC)

To RelHistBuff: With Vb since months questioning nearly every edit to the article and endlessly coming back to topics that have been extremely extensively discussed earlier, the time it took me to write my comment yesterday is only about a hundreth part of the time I lost on this talk page, not to mention the continued rephrasing and edit-commenting at the article. If I would not have spent that precious time, most of what has been done to bring this article back to FA status would have been reverted towards Vb's far from NPOV wishes and often in poor English: even the linguistical improvements had been called POV etc and were reverted repeatedly.

The table that effortlessly passed a month of FAR scrutiny, apart from Vb causing me to make a few adjustments, only much later became criticized (one cannot pretend that no-one would have seen it, if not understandable, it sure was visible enough). This is what I had introduced, back then, and what was called ununderstandable:

Linguistic region	Provisions for			Authority, limited to their respective terrains, of
	individuals & organisations expressing themselves			the Communities			the Regions (and their provinces)			the Federal government
	in Dutch	in French	in German	Flemish	French	German- speaking	Flemish	Walloon	Brussels- Capital
Dutch language area	obvious	local facilities	no provision	×	-	-	×	-	-	×
French language area	local facilities	obvious	no provision	-	×	-	-	×	-	×
Bilingual area Brussels-Capital	obvious	obvious	no provision	×	×	-	-	-	×	×
German language area	no provision	facilities throughout	obvious	-	-	×	-	×	-	×
	Local facilities exist only in specific municipalities near the borders of the Flemish with the Walloon and with the Brussels-Capital Regions.

Meanwhile it was moved from the end of the section where it could not be seen together with the Belgian structure at its beginning. "Provisions" and "obviously" disappeared, and out-of-context "facilities" in the table itself became shown there in a far more understandable way, according to one of the very earliest comments Vb had made. It was further tweaked and improved including a solution for Marskell's problem with the '×'s (which he could interpret like a red X-mark that means 'no' while here above it meant 'yes') and finally also your concerns of a few days ago were properly addressed. The table is now also introduced so as to say what to look for and indicating its relevance, and an undisputed sentence underneath it clarifies more:

The constitutional language areas determine the official languages in their municipalities, as well as the geographical limits of the for specific matters empowered institutions:

	Public services rendered in the language of individuals expressing themselves…			the Communities			the Regions (and their provinces)			the Federal State
				Flemish	French	German- speaking	Flemish	Walloon	Brussels- Capital
	…in Dutch	…in French	…in German
Dutch language area	Y	in 12 municipalities (limited to 'facilities')	-	Y	-	-	Y	-	-	Y
French language area	in 4 municipalities (limited to 'facilities')	Y	in 2 municipalities (limited to 'facilities')	-	Y	-	-	Y	-	Y
Bilingual area Brussels-Capital	Y	Y	-	Y	Y	-	-	-	Y	Y
German language area	-	in all 9 municipalities (limited to 'facilities')	Y	-	-	Y	-	Y	-	Y
	By Law, inhabitants of 27 municipalities can ask limited services to be rendered in a neighbour language, forming 'facilities' for them. 'Facilities' exist only in specific municipalities near the borders of the Flemish with the Walloon and with the Brussels-Capital Regions, and in Wallonia also in 2 municipalities bordering its German language area as well as for French-speakers throughout the latter area.

Although this would allow for seven parliaments and governments, when the Communities and Regions were created in 1980, Flemish politicians decided to merge both; thus in the Flemish Region a single institutional body of parliament and government is empowered for all except federal and specific municipal matters.

Notice also that the layout now fits a crosstab table (colour of the titles of rows like the titles for the columns, and the confusing "title" above the row-titles disappeared), which makes it a fare more conventional and for many a more familiar sight.
Just a moment ago (2007-08-23 00:52), I realized that the intro sentence allows for dropping the rather awkward top title above the empowered institutions and here above I'm showing this newest version.
Once people have made up their mind about something being ununderstandable, even after improvements, as the subject remains complex regardless whether one uses text or a table, you mustnot expect anyone to come forward stating "wow, now the Belgian structure is made clear at a first glance". Let me I remind you that even Marskell, who has been the most radical opponent of my edits in general, had placed the table in this section, giving it the title "Cutting the table for now" (my emphasis). The most recent eliminations of the so heavily adapted table by RelHistBuff, Vb and Marskell are no longer related to the claimed 'ununderstandability' of the table but must then be a camouflaged ensuring of not informing the reader in an understandable way about Belgium's structure and the ethical considerations that played, see my comment of yesterday. I'm not accusing all three of you, but it would surprise me if it would not apply to anyone. A few people horrified by a schematic overview in a table, mustnot play God, they are not the WP community, and should not censor something that could pass FA twice. If there is still something unclear about the table, it should be precisely pointed out as it had been before, which has allowed proper improvements of those points, and it could then be further improved instead of eradicated. None of the earlier criticisms find their cause back in the current table. — SomeHuman 22 Aug2007 23:39 – 23 Aug2007 01:08 (UTC)

I am very sorry SomeHuman but, while the table has been much improved, it is not clear yet. I think what is not clear is the meaning of the symobls "v". I don't mean I cannot understand this. I mean I think this is not easily understandable. I think the problem is that the symbols "v" are on the same level as "in n municipalities". Vb 06:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Vb, that's a bit ludicrous: the checkmark symbol is created on WP even with a template to make it easier to apply it, precisely because it should be used on WP as everyone knows that symbol. One who does not understand one of the most common symbols in the world and being used in a most normal way, would't even be capable to surf to the article Belgium. The level being the same is most evident, each is in the single appropriate box on the cross section of the language area with a language that can be used there: either a green checkmark that means to everyone a full yes, or an explicit small number of municipalities and then still limited to 'facilities'. That makes anyone realize that for speakers of a neighbour language only limited services are available in a small part of the language area, one does not even have to know anything about 'facilities'. I can't make the checkmarks come popping up into the air in front of the PC screen. — SomeHuman 23 Aug2007 17:08 (UTC)

Thanks to SomeHuman for pointing out to me that his 4-region subdivision is indeed official (art 4 of the Constitution). Now since my proposal follows the same subdivision, it is not hard to adapt. (...or so I thought.)

I maintain my point about the table complexity and redundancy which makes it harder to represent the big picture. Yet search for an accurate representation of the division, I found out a table representation has some virtues (e.g. it becomes heavy to explain in sentences that "the dutch language region coincides with the Flanders Region; hence the following table-form proposal below (with more text and less cells) :

(--proposal begins here--)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+-----------------------------------
| REGIONAL SUBDIVISION | LINGUISTIC SUBDIVISION (1) |  OFFICIAL LANGUAGES (2)|  FACILITIES FOR OTHER LANGUAGES (3)
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+-----------------------------------
| Flanders             |   "dutch language region"  |  Dutch                 |  French, in 12 municipalities
|                      |                            |                        |  next to Brussels or Wallonia
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+-----------------------------------
| Brussels-Capital     |   "bilingual Brussels-     |  French, Dutch         |  None
|                      |  capital Region            |                        |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+-----------------------------------
|                      |                            |                        |  Dutch, in 4 municipalities
|                      |  "french language region"  |  French                |  next to Flanders; German, in 2 mun.
| Wallonia             |                            |                        |  next to the German language region
|                      +-----------------------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
|                      |  "german language region"  |  German                |  French, throughout (9 municipalities)
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) named as per article 4 of the Constitution; you should not understand "dutch language region" as meaning that it is the only area where dutch is spoken;

(2) this column also determines on which areas the Dutch, French and German "Communities" have power

(3) "facilities" are public services rendered in other languages than the official one, in a limited area and under conditions

(--proposal ends here--)

(Random notes on terminology (sorry if some of these may already be obvious for everyone, I'd like to point out things if only for me since I'm jumping into this discussion):

• since "Region" has an official meaning in Belgium, we should take care to distinguish "Region" (Belgian official meaning) from "region" (other meanings) or avoid using the latter;
• from previous discussions on this page, it looks like "municipality" is a better english translation than "commune". It seems more natural not only in English: "municipalité" is also probably better understood in France than "commune".
• if "facilities" means "toilets", which less slippery translation could we chose ? ;-)

--FvdP 20:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Terminology: "Language area" is just as official a name in the Constitution (Dutch and German versions have equal legal weight as the French version), and it is the in English more common term (also outside Belgium). "Facilities" does not just mean 'toilets', it theoretically means 'things that facilitate' and in practice, 'the services and/or objects available, provided by an authority (one in charge, e.g. public authority or e.g. the local management of a shop, a department store, etc) in order to facilitate a visit to a place' - providing toilets is just one of such things that fall under the heading 'facilities', which made it a way to express 'toilets' in a less direct manner (only understood in clear context, it never became the usual term for 'toilets', another common usage is e.g. "facilities for the disabled" such as level access to the premises [having toilets or not] for wheelchair users) while other facilities are commonly referred to by the straightforward word ('beverages machine', 'elevator', 'separate smoking area' etc). But all the meanings for 'facilities' are still common English. The term mustnot be retranslated, all sources in English use 'facilities' for the Belgian thing.

Table design: Too much attention for the Regions, by letting them by themselves form the titles for the horizontal lines: Communitities would only be part of a series of titles (and in your proposal only by a sidenote). That may even be considered POV towards separatism. The language areas do not, as is the case for the Regions, Communities and Federal state, exercise power; there is no contest against their having a dominant place in a table because they cannot be a party in the discussion or competition about which level of government has or should have authority on particular matters. Constitutionally and historically, the language areas form the basis 1) to decide whether a municipality is French-speaking, German-speaking (with facilities for French), Dutch-speaking, bilingual, and 2) to form the boundaries for the Regions and for the Communities, not the other way around.
Your proposal concentrates on the language aspects alone (as if for an article on the facilities) from the viewpoint of Regions [one might create a similar one with Communities on the left](as if for an article on the Regions), while the current table is intended 1) to clarify what language areas are about (not elsewhere in the article), and 2) to show the relationship between all Belgian constitutional subdivisions (hence fitting this article), and the language areas are (undisputedly) the one-and-only common factor. — SomeHuman 24 Aug2007 09:58–12:11 (UTC)

Well, obviously one can reorder columns and rows in my table, it's not a problem to put the 4 linguistical regions column first. We should perhaps order Wallonia before Brussels as it is greater and more populated. If needed, we can even keep the original order (NL-FR-BRU-GE) by splitting Wallonia. This should easily fix your POV concerns.

There's a column with languages, you can add "communities" in its title, since the subdivision is the same (something that's not that obvious in _your_ table).

See my solution looks really near to what you want to express.

"Language area": I'm not discussing this. Area, region, territory, I have no strong feeling about which to chose. OK for area.

"Facilities": OK.

--FvdP 18:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand my point. A table has two dimensions. In your table the Regions take one dimension (horizontally) all by themselves, all other subdivisions have to share the vertical dimension. Only the language areas (because not competing with other subdivisions, and because they are the only common factor forming the basis for the other aspects) can alone take an entire dimension. That is the table design, other aspects such as the order amongst the Regions (or Communities, or language areas), or the order of these groups of vertical columns, are mere details.
Please follow a convention on talk pages, of putting one more ":" in front of your paragraphs in an additional comment, than the comment above yours has; I just put this extra indent in your latest comment. — SomeHuman 24 Aug2007 18:54 (UTC)

Taking a closer look at your suggestion of putting the language areas' column first (thus forming the horizontal dimension), you come close to the current table. But it leaves your table the problem that the Federal State can not be presented, or requires a different presentation style for it. The wordy style makes it also harder to follow each row, hampering the purpose of an overview. Also your "title" on top of the first column, like I had put there as well in my earlier version, appears to make it more difficult for some people to immediately understand that there are rows depicted with their (language) area related to all the aspects shown by the columns. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 24 Aug2007 20:35 (UTC)

P.S.: Your simple header "Official languages" can mislead readers, see my P.S. of 22 Aug2007 05:08 (UTC). To this respect, I would advise to avoid mentioning "legal matters", because even for several municipalities without facilities within the Flemish Region there is still the problem of the judicial arrondissement BHV (apart from the electoral arrondissement more commonly known by that name) which is a tough legal matter and one of the causes of the King having had to interrupt his holiday yesterday and fly back to Belgium so as to accept Leterme's resignation from his job as formateur. — SomeHuman 24 Aug2007 22:46–23:13 (UTC)

There is no need to add a "federal state" column, except for the sake of being pedantically complete. Isn't it obvious enough that the Belgian federal state has authority everywhere?

I agree the "official language" header is misleading, I had my qualms about it, but that's surely not an argument against the global form of my table.

My wordly style IMO improves global readability, indeed at some cost, since search for _some_ _specific_ information becomes more complex. But remember, this is an introductory article, and the information is still in the table.

If you think my table is hard to read, perhaps you should consider that someone who has not authored your table, might find it even harder to read?

Anyway I'm on leave now for a few days. Good luck...

--FvdP 17:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The "search for _some_ _specific_ information becomes more complex", indeed; that is not what a table is intended to do. It is an overview and thus must show that also the federal level exists and exercises its authority. Your table having a problem to depict that is a weakness of the table design, not a reason to even further weaken the overview purpose of the table. And I really do not see where its advantage would lie. Never mind, just have a very nice holiday, FvdP. — SomeHuman 27 Aug2007 02:15 (UTC)

I utterly agree with the table suggested by FvdP. This is clear and easily understandable. I also agree with FvdP that the column Federal State would be pedantic. Vb —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.79.220.176 (talk) 15:32, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

No argument, as always. You just want to make readers skip a cluttered overview, like you wanted to cripple the table by elimnating any mentioning of facilities before, by stating anything. In an overview omitting the federal level while showing both regional levels exercising power, would be POV and definitely not an NPOV presentation. But that's OK for you when it fits your POV, is it not? I hope that FvdP and Funnyhat are clever enough to see how you deliberately continue to troll and upon the arrival of newcomers opportunistically jump to getting the article present what fits your POV instead of what proper sources, proper balancing and careful NPOV editing can accomplish. — SomeHuman 27 Aug2007 21:06 (UTC)

SomeHuman, I can understand that discussions and disagreements can increase wikistress levels and I can understand that you don't agree with Vb. But is it really necessary to accuse him of trolling and that he wants to push some POV. As far as I know, he only supports the table and the arguments of another contributor and he does that on the talk page (instead of an edit war - remember: a talk page is meant for discussion and arguments - and opinions can differ) This is not really a constructive or respectful approach. Did anyone consider to drop the idea of a table and replace it with a map? For instance Flanders is dark blue and the (area of the) facilities are light blue, Wallonia is red and the facilities are light red, Brussels is purple, German areas are brown? The image caption can explain the rest. Sijo Ripa 21:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Sijo Ripa, did you count how many times Vb started yet another section on an identical topic, and even pushed the table under the nose of the FAR reviewers on the latest FAR page? That is TROLLING and I have repeatedly warned Vb against using that trolling technique. One normally ignores a troll, but as experience has shown, Vb than pretends to assume he's got the way clear to tamper with the article as he pleases and by now realizes that such renewed edit war gets him the troll fun again. This has been going on for about four months now. Vb is also back to his old behaviour of not signing in before making edits to articles, knowing that his IP address changes after a couple of days. For a long time we could recognize his edits by the 84.175.nnn.nnn IP and, realizing we knew, Vb had started to sign in but still skipped that occasionally. But now he's got an entirely new set of IP addresses like 87.79.99.139 and here above (probably really forgotten he hadn't signed in) 87.79.220.176, Vb has started again to edit articles without signing in and thus his changing IP makes article histories appear as if several contributors agree with the contributor signing in as Vb; that is Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Whenever one starts to give Vb a little credit by assuming he's making progress and actually doing a few truly constructive edits, his behaviour quickly switches and makes clear that a re-assumption of possible good faith was premature. Can you honestly believe Vb as he had first (months ago) maintained not to be able to understand 'my' table, but now he would easily understand FvdP's table that was not even shown with all the modifications that FvdP agreed on to be desirable? Or that Vb can as yet not find 'my' current table equally easy to understand? Or that Vb finds the mentioning of the Federal State 'pedantic', after my explaining to FvdP why it is necessary, whereas Vb's suggested table of 2007-06-01 mentioned it?
There are already 6 maps that show the geographical location; and that is all a map can do. The four constitutional types of institutions (language areas, Regions, Communities, Federal State) all overlap 100% and thus their relationship cannot be shown on a map. Some of the municipalities with facilities are also too small for any map of a reasonable size. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 27 Aug2007 22:32 (UTC)

Dear SomeHuman, I am not making any sock puppetry because I have never pretended all those IP addresses were not mine. I do this only for pratical and technical reason and I have the right to do so. I had added some ideas of yours in the table I once wrote (including this column about the federal state) in order to find a compromise with you. Now that I read FvdP arguments I got convinced this column was not usefull and a bit pedantic. I also personally think it is not usefull to tell in this general article how many municipalities have facilities. However if FvdP and you agree with this presentation I am ready to join this compromise. Vb 08:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

About Sijo Ripa's arguments about a map. I agree with him this would be simpler and nicer than a table. However we have already this. My conclusion is (as Marskell) that the table is not required AT ALL. However we need a compromise with SomeHuman, we therefore need an understandable table or text with more or less the same content (i.e. an explicit definition of the linguistic regions. Vb 08:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

All points of criticism have been addressed in the current table, don't invent new ones. I had already claimed from the start that all you wanted to obtain was eliminating the mentioning of the facilities for your POV reasons, as I later explained because you apparently wish to show Belgium as a country that has no respect for its minorities. At least, now you admit what you really want out, and that has absolutely nothing to do with being understandable. The table meets the highest standards and shows Belgium's regionalization with a federal level and its finer-tuned responsability for minority languages, as it really is. — SomeHuman 28 Aug2007 16:50 (UTC)

Dear SomeHuman, I am really happy you say now explicitly which POV I am supposed to have. I don't want to say that "Belgium as a country that has no respect for its minorities" because I don't believe so. I am ready to mention the facilities in the article in order to avoid this impression of that this POV might be expressed. I am however against mentioning the exact number of municipalities with facilities because I believe it is a too detailed info which is not interesting in this general article. I thought the point of the table was to explain the reader what are the linguistic regions and not explain what the facilities are. Vb 08:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The picture gets clearer all the time. You can allow Belgium to be shown as what it is, except that it must not allow an unlikely attentive reader to spot for him/herself that in the French-speaking area there are 4 municipalities with facilities for Dutch-speakers, while the other way around there are three times as many, and the French-speaking area offers facilities for German-speakers in only 2 places though the German-speakers offer facilities for French-speakers in their entire Community consisting of 9 municipalies. In other words, there are far more municipalities (21) with facilities for the 40% of French-speakers, than the latter offer for the 60% speakers of other languages (6 for their both languages together). Well, the article does not draw any attention to this, but it is a most NPOV fact, and only unacceptable POV reasons could steer to eliminate this: as you admit that the facilities are intended to respect speakers of a neighbour language, you apparently only want to hide that this respect might be seen not to come equally from all sides. I don't think that such elimination would be proper with the impasse in forming a federal government being strongly linked to the French-speakers' demand to make the Flemish Rode instead of a municipality with 'only facilities, a full-fledged bilingual part of the strongly French-language dominated bilingual Region Brussels-Capital (making the unbalance in showing respect even stronger). The table is not POV (neither subconsciously intended as I had devized the table and started to put the figures in before realizing their spread, nor in any way causing a breach of NPOV), and it was created with the numbers of municipalities with facilities, in tempore non suspecto. The idea that the table was "ununderstandable" appears by your continued attempt to remove its information not to have been, certainly not now, the point of view at which you pay most attention. Of course, the numbers of municipalities with facilities were most likely not a matter of politicians saying "We want so many municipalities" but rather a consequence of French-speakers moving into a Dutch-speaking area not adopting the local language, whereas the many Flemish people that came to live in a mainly French-speaking area wouldn't have thought of maintaining their own speech for generations or to use it in public. That does make the argument of respect stick, it's not a false impression (as far as anyone would do the maths, which I think to occur very rarely). By the way, I do not think that many people could be surprised to see numbers in a table. — SomeHuman 04 Sep2007 19:46 (UTC)

Well nobody will ever try to compare the number of municipalities with facilities in the different regions because nobody knows how big the municipalities are! And how the facilities are really applied in practice in each region. The interested reader definitively needs to read the subarticles on the topic. This general article is not the place to discuss this. If your intention is to show the reader how open minded the Flemings are in according so many municipalities a special status then it is clear that putting those to detailed numbers in the table is a simple POV pushing strategy. Vb 12:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Last sentence of the lead

I don't understand why the sentence:

Upon its independence Belgium participated in the Industrial Revolution,[12][13] bringing wealth that further increased during the era of its African colonies.

has been replaced by

Upon its independence, Belgium eagerly participated in the Industrial Revolution,[12][13] generating wealth and also a demand for raw materials; the latter was a factor during the era of its African colonies.[14]

Why do we need the word "eagerly"? Why do we have to discuss the "demand of raw material" in the lead? I think the goal of this paragraph is to shortly summarise the history of Belgium. I have already tried to edit this but all my edits are systematically reversed by SomeHuman. Vb 09:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The modification had not been introcuced by me, and when I looked for sources before possibly reverting it, I found it easy to have the statement properly sourced. That includes the eargerness. Must I remind you that the very early industrialization in Wallonia not having been strongly enough supported by William of the Netherlands, was the main economical cause of the Belgian Revolution? That is the relevance of the term 'eager', they had a revolution for it. In general, sentimental revolutions do not last for long without an economical interest that brings support from the people with financial means. For the article it suffices to let the sources show that Belgium was indeed one of the earliest countries to put its money on the industrialization. And with a risk. Or did you not know that only five years after the revolution, and still threatened and invaded by Dutch military forces, four years before the Netherlands would recognize Belgium's independence, there already was a railroad built and in use between Brussels and Mechelen (the very first in the world, apart from Britain) and only one year later trains ran till Antwerp (having the harbour that had to be reached for the industry in the southern part of the country) though Antwerp lies dangerously close to the Netherlands. That is more than eager, even today and with by now lots of experience, such work would not be finished more quickly. And with a booming industry, is it not interesting to realize what economical interest Leopold II had in Africa, rather than letting the earlier sentence drop Africa from the blue sky? It's a much better sentence than the one that didn't give any information at all. It rather explains how that "wealth" increased during the colonial time; the earlier version sounded slightly like a POV towards the colonial time because it had no context (and was not sourced). In fact, it is all the more valuable an addition because the raw sources would remain the core (or should I say, copper ore) interest during the entire Belgian colonial rule. — SomeHuman 22 Aug2007 19:03–19:16 (UTC)

What you say is utterly correct but this is an analysis - a correct analysis (i.e. that I share with you, not that everybody must share with you)- of the Belgium history. As such it is a judgement of the reason why Belgium got independent and why it got colonies. This is a POV - maybe a correct one - on Belgium history. It belongs to the history or economic section: not to the lead. The lead is just a summary that must be very neutral. We don't need an analysis of the importance of the demand for raw materials in the lead. We need just a very short summary of Belgian history (as it stands in most textbooks). I once introduced in this article a statement about the role of Katanga's Uranium on the postwar development of Belgium. I removed this statement because it was much too detailed for his general article. You are making the same mistake than I did. About the word eagerly. Of course you are right: Belgium participated eagerly to the industrial revolution but IMO it should be expressed with less hype so that this statement does not appear to the reader of this article as the expression of a national pride, i.e. a non neutral POV. Vb 06:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Your concepts of POV and of NPOV are completely different from what WP warns against and strictly holds on to, respectively. And I have already explained that WP is not neutral: WP should not describe Hitler as "the most inhumane devil of all times", but it must describe the Holocaust with all the horror that topic deserves; one cannot and mustnot leave out properly sourced and highly relevant facts simply because their being mentioned might cause the reader to chose a side. The proper sources make the statement in the article relevant, not my explaining to you why it is relevant enough to touch the topic very briefly in the lead; my comment here only serves to show to you that what the sources tell is already good enough to support the sentence, and that one could easily bring forward dozens of sources that go much further but such extensive sourcing would not be in balance with a short mentioning of the undisputed and to historians wellknown fact of raw materials to have played a (major) role. Your Katanga needs an entire article (apart from uranium, there were far more and economically more important raw resources there and it was not incidentally chosen so as to have the elected prime minister of Democratic Congo murdered there, etc) and cannot occur in a general article. In fact, entire books have been written about such. Important as these things are, they are still only details in the entire history of the colonial Congo. But that entire history and the fact of Belgium having had a colony and why that could happen, is far too relevant to Belgium for it not being mentioned. The properly sourced sentence certainly does not give the subject undue weight, and that is what I have shown. — SomeHuman 23 Aug2007 17:47 (UTC)

Every detail in the lead has a huge weight. A short POV-like statement in the lead will have an undue echo: the normal reader will have the feeling the whole article is written in a POVed style. The sources which are cited are correct ones but nobody understand from the lead that the reader needs to read the sources to convince itself that the article is not biased. I ask you simply not to mention raw materials in the lead. This is not the place where this need to be done. If you want expand some part of the body of the article. The lead is the summary of the article not of the sources! Vb 08:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

You refuse to accept WP:NPOV, it does not mean an article cannot state what is the general consensus amongst notable sources, at the contrary. The fact of it being in the lead, should indicate to the reader that raw materials having played a role, is indeed the general consensus. The sources are there for the reader who might doubt this to be the case, so he/she can verify it. You appear to think that a statement can be made that would not be POV; I must disappoint you: any statement is a POV. By your standards, each single sentence in the article must be tagged 'POV' (the ones you don't see, will be spotted by others), and unfortunately, that is what you nearly have been doing for months now. See also the section hereunder, and please re-read WP:NPOV very carefully (in particular "From Jimbo Wales (...): If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents." — that means these POVs are then IN the article; and the part stating that this is not negotiable.) — SomeHuman 27 Aug2007 01:40 (UTC)

I just changed "eagerly participated in the Industrial Revolution" to "quickly industrialised." The word "quickly" can convey the same idea as "eagerly" without any potential POV issues. Meanwhile, "participated in the Industrial Revolution" is just an awkward phrasing; "industrialised" is shorter and simpler. Funnyhat 01:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Both edits are incorrect. You appear to be making the same mistake as Vb regarding POV. See here above (2007-08-23) and the section hereunder (2007-08-27). 'Quickly' is good enough for a sudden response; 'eargerly' is the term for such after having waited and strived for it, in this case by having a revolution. The Soviet Union may also have quickly and even eagerly "industrialized" at some point, be it nearly a hundred years later than Belgium. But between these countries, only Belgium did so in the Industrial Revolution. It's an era (with a state of mind), not just an industrialization. Please read sources before modifying a sentence, e.g. one says "the cradle of the European industrial revolution - mightily aided after 1830 by the mercantilist policies of the new Belgian state." (my emphasis). — SomeHuman 27 Aug2007 01:49–01:59 (UTC)

NPOV in language section

Editor FunnyHat made the following edit [7] with the comment NPOV. Why did the paragraph get back to its preceding POVed version? The phrase "Economically significant for a further globalizing future," is a POV which must be removed. By the way: Does someone know the percentage of Germans, French and British who is able to speak more than one foreign language? The Flemings may be very proud of their multilingualism and that they are therefore well prepared "for a further globalizing future" but they should state this in a neutral tone without insulting their neighbours. Vb 07:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

According to this Eurobarometer survey, 74% of the Belgians is able to speak at least one foreign language (UK: 38%, France: 51%, Germany: 67%), 67% at least two (UK: 18%, France: 21%, Germany: 27%) and 53% at least three (UK: 6%, France: 4%, Germany: 8%). That means Belgians are, in comparison with the EU average, very good at speaking foreign languages. However, this study only takes into account Belgium as a whole.--Ganchelkas 09:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Ganchelkas. So, if both surveys would have used the same investigation method, Wallonnia fares very bad with 7% able to speak two foreign languages, not only in comparison with Flanders but also in comparison with UK, France and Germany. This does not change the fact that a NPOV tone must be used to say this. Vb 10:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you still not understand that the phrase you keep disputing at again another section of this talk page has been discussed at length and no-one (apart from Marskell of course) could see your point of view here. It were not proud Flemish economists who pointed out the importance of the knowledge of languages for the future. The report had been written for the EU, not for the Flemish parliament, proud or not. France, Germany and Britain can do relatively well with one language because most jobs there do not require contacts with speakers of a foreign language. Do you consider Wallonia a part of France? That view will definitely not come in this article; la Francophonie gets little attention outside its own language-related culture that happens to be loosing its international importance with English clearly having taken the lead. An area with just 4 million speakers of one language and 6 million speaking another one in a country with many dozens of official international institutions and numerous private organisations and firms that seek the international environment, and that prefer a comparatively low-powered state (or region or whatever) above a large country that can afford to set its own demands, requires a high percentage of people speaking several languages; the others are bound to be left without a job. Do you think the multilingualism in Flanders originated from someone's idea, Let's impress the world by showing how many people can learn not just one but several languages? It grew out of economical necessity. That is what the Walloon politicians and by now at least some of the ordinary people have become aware of and what has drawn a European interest upon this on a European scale small and by now even poor region. It can't pretend to be France, or behave like it. Di Rupo's Walloon Marshall Plan and this report have gotten wide media coverage, and Vb, the report was published in Regards économiques, not revealed by the Taalunie: it's all about economy, not about linguistics, though it belongs in the 'language' subsection. Believe me, for the general article on Belgium one does not expect that subsection to pay a lot of attention to the intricacies of French or Dutch, but rather to the usage of the languages and how that is seen to play a role in the country. Do you not realize that merely showing the Walloons to be the least willing to learn languages (or capable at learning those, like the presently resigning formateur once suggested), is far more devastating to the respect for Walloon culture, than showing that one is already aware of the consequences. — SomeHuman 23 Aug2007 23:41–23:59 (UTC)

Dear SomeHuman, the saddest in what you say and our dispute in general is that I almost agree with everything you said. Surprising enough : we have almost the same POV. Of course mine is sometimes a bit pro Walloons and yours is a bit pro Flemings but that's normal (and that's fun). I don't believe Wallonia is a part of France neither am I any separatist or whatever. I think we don't agree about the definition of POV and NPOV. I was disagreeing with your words "undoubtedly well known" because they were no correct citation. Now the citation is correct (I still don't agree with the wording "demand" but I so fed up fighting with you on details that I prefer concentrating on the main points). However the second part of the paragraph, while of course conform to the content of the source, does not belong to a correct encyclopaedia entry. I am personally able to speak at a very high level two foreign languages. I therefore belong to those 7% of the Walloons. I am of course ashame of that so low number. However I now so many people (and friends) who only know French and are proud of this. I disagree with them on this point. However I would never call them stupid or idiot. This is simply their point of view. Telling them they are not well prepared "for a further globalizing future" can be done in the source we are discussing because this is signed by some authors. This source express the POV of several academics with whom many including myself share the concerns. Giving an urgent advice to the Walonian population is their right. This is NOT the right of the authors of any encyclopaedia and of WP in particular. I think editors FunnyHat and Marskell, who have really no POV on the question, do agree with me. Vb 07:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Your idea about people "who have really no POV" is not funny, it's sad. Your and my definitions of POV or NPOV is irrelevant; WP:NPOV is the definition we both have to follow when writing an article. The admission in the article of the POV of the authors, is not depending on it being a POV or not, but on whether these authors are notable and whether their POV report has been given considerable media coverage. As there cannot be doubt about such, because even national and international media coverage is sourced, while the report is most relevant for the subsection and for Belgium and does not weigh less than other statements that are in the article, WP:NPOV determines that it must be correctly presented in the article, that is by attributing the POV to the source. That makes your POV-tagging is totally inappropriate: You use a POV-tag for a properly attibuted POV that according to WP:NPOV belongs in the article; the tag on the contrary, is meant to question a point of view of a contributor or contributors to be expressed. It had been discussed before and the tag had been there before, it was removed because of the (over-)sourcing having proven your assumption not to hold. Stop trolling. That is what you insist on doing: You never stop coming back on the same issues that have been handled comprehensively and exhaustingly before. You always do it in a new section, especially if you think some recently shown-up contributor may come to your rescue based on your apparently honest concern, and thus hoping he/she will take a stand before this contributor is realizing what has already been discussed. I further remind you that applying WP:NOPV is not based on consensus. — SomeHuman 27 Aug2007 01:15 (UTC)

I can't believe this is being debated. I made that edit without even giving it a second thought. Of course it's POV to say that learning foreign languages is "economically significant for a further globalizing future". This is an encyclopedia, not an op-ed piece. You may have a point that the failure of the Walloons to learn second languages is holding them back, but that's something for the reader to decide on his/her own; it's not the job of an encyclopedia to make arguments like that. Funnyhat 01:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

READ WP:NPOV, I do not have a point. The sources do. And they are notable, and their statement is noticed as media coverage proves, and that is properly sourced, and the POV is attributed to the sources (scolared, scientifical ones, not an editorial), as WP:NPOV explicitly demands for such cases.
P.S.: See the Jimbo Wales quotes in the section here above. — SomeHuman 27 Aug2007 02:05–02:59 (UTC)

Explanation for my edit: (1) It's better to attribute the citation to the authors, rather than to the UCL. (2) Also, I would only keep the part that is potentially controversial as a quotation. A long quotation is thus unnecessary. (3) The use of square brackets [ ] to clarify something in a quotation is an accepted custom. My [ ] do not change the content of the quotation in any way, and improve readability. Sijo Ripa 09:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Not the professors' report itself, certainly not in particular because of the professors' notability, but it being published in a notable journal of the very well-known French-speaking university, with an eye-catching introduction that stated " devoted to the demand for knowledge of languages in Belgium and in its three regions " is what caught all the media attention. And that high profile is what made this a must for this section. Yesterday, I had followed you in mentioning the name of a professor as well, but as there are two and the sources do not explicitly name one as the author of the report, while mentioning both behind the univ would sound a little pedantic and make reading unnecessarily harder, both are best left out. Their prominent place in the relevant footnote reference gives them proper credit.
You apparently do not read edit comments in the edit history, or you should not have called the figures for Brussels a conclusion, they are mere data.
The conclusion of the report (apart from advise given), is in the only part that is still contested by Vb: the relevance of knowing languages for the economical future, which for the Walloon Region appears dimmer than is already the case. It is very mildly stated in the article (compare with the about eight quotes from the report I had put on this talk page earlier, before judging). The part of the paragraph you edited, was agreed upon by Vb and myself and passed FA without a glitch, leave it be. In fact, your opening phrase is most likely a false statement: probably, the professors did not survey anyone but worked on it only afterwards; they analyzed the raw data that had become available, reported on these, drew conclusions with respect to the economical future, and (still very cautiously) gave a policy advice towards changing the Walloon mentality. Which is why Vb's idea that mentioning the significance for the future would be POV, is utterly ridiculous. It is not the survey or the knowledge of languages (regional differences were already well-known) that stirred the media and the people, but the now also in Wallonia clearly seen consequenses for the future balance of Walloon/Flemish economies that caused so much attention. In that respect and with actual phrases like "Le chauffeur de l’ambulance est endormi, et il est temps qu’il se réveille" ("The ambulance driver is fallen asleep, and it is time he wakes up") in the report, the hint now in the article cannot possibly be more low-key. — SomeHuman 28 Aug2007 18:22 (UTC)

Yes, SomeHuman, you are right. But you may not write this in an encyclopeadia article about Belgium. I am sorry but you are ballantly wrong. Of course a POV may be cited in WP but not this way. Look for example at the very disputed lead of Vlaams Belang. There two POV are correctly cited on the question whether VB is far right or not. Here you cannot find a serious source telling that knowing French only is not an handicap for the future of Wallonia because this is not politically correct to say so. Therefore you cannot balance the source. However many Walloons think so. This is their right to think so. This is also the right of the authors of the source to tell them they are wrong. This is not the job of any encyclopaedist to tell them. FunnyHat is right: we are no editorialists : we are encyclopaedists. That's all. Vb 11:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Somehuman, (1) I must have overlooked the "concluded" for Brussels and I agree with you that "surveyed" is not verifiable. I aplogize for changing those things. I do think that the part is currently not very readable. The first part of the quotation can be trimmed and [ ] brackets can be used to add some info about the Marshall pact. (2) The emphasis on the publisher could (and most likely does) constitute a POV. The right way to attribute is to mention the authors, not the publisher - and this guideline should not be altered because of readability concerns. The section is about the linguistic situation in Belgium, NOT about the reasons why a certain report gained media attention and others did not. The report was notable whether or not it was published by the ULC, as it is one of the few academic research reports about the language knowledge in Belgium. So, the emphasis on the publisher (UCL) and a characteristic ("the largest French-speaking university") is unnecessary and most likely POV. (3) I never objected to "economically significant" - that's a discussion between you and Vb, not me. (4) I strongly object to the statement that a part cannot be edited because two editors have made an agreement. See: WP:OWN. Sijo Ripa 17:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why you should feel compelled to follow such agreement, but if you consider the debates between Vb and me having stirred a few people e.g. during last FAR, I suggested to leave it be. Whether mentioning of the report is proper for this article, depends on the weight of the report as it was seen by the public: 'Belgium' is not an academical article. And that was in particular the case precisely because it came from the UCL, to which both professors are connected anyway. As the names of the professors are relatively unnotable (sorry profs) in a general Belgian context, a publication elsewhere by anything other than the famous university would most likely not have caused the attention that made this report worth getting into this general article. The clear specification of the university being French-speaking, is correct because a same report from the KUL would have been waved aside by French-speaking media and it would in that case be considered a Flemish POV to shove it into this article. Belgians know the univ's language and do not need it mentioned, but this is the English-language WP (where not every reader can distinct French from Dutch in a name) and thus we need to clearly state that the report's viewpoint is self-criticism, a viewpoint shared or at least having the attention in important parts of both communities; it would otherwise by readers be assumed very likely one-sided POV, it is our task to prevent that assumption in order to present WP to be NPOV. Another reason for the attribution to the publisher, is that the quoted phrase in the introduction is from the univ's journal, and its phrase about the demand for knowledge of languages in Belgium helps to show to the reader that it is not just a WP contributor who found the report relevant for Belgium but that this is of a general interest in Belgium (again ensuring the reader that the mentioning of apparently hard statements is NPOV).
Whatever is going on at other WP articles, is not to be our guide. Though it is funny, if not alarming, that according to Vb the discussion is now whether the Vlaams Belang is far-right. Not long ago the discussion was wether it was extreme right. The WP policy on NPOV, verifiability, proper balancing of the weight (importance), and proper attribution (thus in this case attributed to what caused that weight), are to guide us.
As the dates of the Walloon Marshall plan and the date of publication of the report in Regards économiques are relevant (as is apparent if one reads the report), intersecting those dates also between [ ] within the quotation would make the latter unreadable. Be aware that there was a recent FA review that accepted the sentence that you intended to modify, it cannot be considered hard to read then. Yesterday I did insert the family names of the professors (the report has been referred to as the Ginsburgh-Weber report, though not generally in the larger media), partially because of your concern, and because it offers a style benefit by no longer having to use the (also slightly weaselry-sounding) passive tense. I also assume that by their specialisation being mentioned, the reader will not feel as much supprised by the otherwise sudden between Vb and me contested subphrase about the economical significance: it rather helps to prevent the punch or sting that Vb apparently felt by the switch from languages (education) to economics (though this was already, perhaps too early for some readers to be actually noticed, taken care of by mentioning 'Regards économiques'). Kind regards. — SomeHuman 29 Aug2007 22:21 (UTC)

Vb, I'm sorry but it appears to me that you are rattling on... If you think (correctly or not: note that WP:NPOV is not about 'The Truth' but about verifiability and weight) that a lot of people have other opinions than those in the report and to my knowledge anywhere having drawn attention in the media, then the only way to corroborate your assumption of this matter not to be shown correctly the current way in this encyclopaedia, is by you delivering proper sources that show these assumed other opinions 1) to exist and 2) to be notable (having sufficient weight so as to express them in the article). Any other deliberate attempts to have the article showing your viewpoint are called POV-pushing. That is WP:NPOV policy, which every contributor must abide; I did not make the rules, and this one is not even made by WP community consensus either. We, contributors, are not the owners of WP. (Btw, have a look into my reply to Sijo Ripa here above.) — SomeHuman 29 Aug2007 22:48 (UTC)

To both Sijo Ripa and Vb: Only once, Vb rose the question[sic] of the demand for knowledge of languages being a proper translation of la question des connaissances linguistiques. I have never been entirely happy with this "demand" either, because there is a slight difference: this is not a matter of 'demand and supply', of people or companies asking for (more) knowledge of languages. It is rather the (apparently at the time clearly noted) demand for paying attention to the assumed or suspected importance of the knowledge of languages, as to ascertain whether one should take the (economically motivated) demand very serious. But at the time I had tried to find a less ambiguous term, and failed to find one. I had even looked into other translations as how la question de/des was handled and even found a paragraph (I forgot where) on that particular translation topic. It did nevertheless appear that 'demand for' was the way to translate this. I do not wish to introduce a free translation of the then contested phrase which sticks as close as in proper English possible to the French original, and I still don't think there is one that keeps the phrase as short as the original. But on this particular term, I gladly keep an open mind for suggestions, as long as those do not say the question of knowledge of languages. — SomeHuman 30 Aug2007 00:06 (UTC)

Cultural or linguistic frontier?

Personnally, I think that writing it is cultural is misleading because language is only a part of a culture. And a same cultural area can be overlapping two linguistic regions. At least, it is not said that it is an ethnic border since Belgae are often considered as a partly German people and since Franks settled in Low Countries became sometimes roman-speaking (see map) and some latin people was germanized as in Tournai where all sepultures are germanic after Migration Period though this region is considered to have never been germanic-speaking. Also, french-speaking Belgians called Walloons (a germanic name with only a linguistic consideration, not cultural, geographic or ethnic, see fr:Walh article in French WP - english article is not really a good one) have more in common with germanic-speaking people of Low Countries than with Southern French, Spanish or Italians. Same for misnamed Flemish people (a Limburger or a Brabantine being called a Flemish is quite weird) have more in common with other Belgians than with German or Swedish people. Also, historically the cleavage in that part of Europe was not north-south but west-east with the border between French kingdom and Holy Roman Empire politically but also religiously, with Tournai and Liege Bishoprics overlapping roman and tudesc regions. Also culturally with the scaldian and mosan art style. For example, Tournai Cathedral (dedicated to Our Lady of Flanders) is a Flemish art masterpiece but not being in dutch-speaking part of Belgium, but Tournai was the religious capital of Flanders and was considered until French Revolution as a Flemish town, of Romance Flanders. This consideration can be used also for switzerland. David Descamps 07:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's both cultural and linguistic. Belgium is located on the frontier between the northern, more Germanic cultures and the southern, more Latin cultures, and between the Germanic and Latin languages.--Ganchelkas 09:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure, a linguistic border imply always a cultural change, at least minimal. But the opposite, a cultural border doesn't imply always a linguistic change. So, it sounds more correct to use "linguistic frontier" rather than "cultural frontier". David Descamps 10:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not a matter of how it sounds. It is a cultural border of which the linguistic aspect is made clear by naming the Latin and Germanic Europe. Where did you get that "frontier"? It says "boundary", which does not sound[sic] as much as a front line. If you read the section on culture in the article, you find that Belgian culture is separated along that language border, and one can hardly claim French and German culture, apart from their languages, to be the same. The language is only one and a far too limited aspect of culture, for only that aspect to get all the attention. — SomeHuman 13 Sep2007 18:09 (UTC)

So why put "cultural boundary"? Germanic and Latin Europes are linguistic denominations, not cultural. And you agree that languages are only an aspect of culture. David Descamps 20:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not at all agree that Germanic Europe and Latin Europe are merely linguistic denominations. The terms refer to distinct cultures. The only thing that they have in common is that they are both located in Europe, but in clearly separate large chunks of it. The ethnic origins of the people two thousand years ago was different, their histories were largely different with only a few short periods at which some common border areas have been under one rule [the now Belgian area is an exception as it was at several and rather long occasions more or less united, though as one still sees now, not quite becoming one culture]. After the comparatively very short period of the Carolingian Empire (too short to cause much cultural exchange), the Germanic 'Holy Roman Empire' till now Germany and several of its neighbours never united with the Gaullish or French realms. The philosophical schools always remained clearly distinct. The common Christian religion is split into Protestantism and Catholicism [Flanders being the exception purely by Spanish coercion, military domination and prosecution at the time of the schism]. Even their food is distinctive (e.g. the Latin countries' use of sauses is hardly common in Germanic areas, wine versus beer). One does not mention only one aspect while there are many aspects, one mentions the more complete term: calling it a "the linguistic boundary" is as accurate as calling it "the boundary between beer and wine drinking". — SomeHuman 14 Sep2007 10:25 (UTC)

What you described in the first paragraph of this talk page section, and the exceptions I just mentioned, illustrate that Belgium is indeed on the border, straddling the boundary, between two culturally different areas. And that the language border (officially established in 1962) is not the exact separation line between all aspects of the larger areas' cultures; the languages having been or now spoken in e.g. le Tournaisis (area Tournai/Doornik) or in the Brussels area did not necessarily match a cultural switch, either in time or according to an individual's language. Thus the expression "Straddling the cultural boundary between Germanic and Latin Europe" is one of the most accurate and stylistically outstanding ones of the entire article. — SomeHuman 14 Sep2007 11:04 (UTC)

You convinced me :-) Have a nice week! David Descamps 15:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

"but the difference is considerable" does not do much good.

I would like to change

"The surveys show that Flanders is clearly more multilingual, but the difference is considerable : whereas 59% and 53% of the Flemings know French or English respectively, only 19% and 17% of the Walloons know Dutch or English."

to

"The surveys show that Flanders is clearly more multilingual: whereas 59% and 53% of the Flemings know French or English respectively, only 19% and 17% of the Walloons know Dutch or English."

The 'but .. considarable' does not do much good, especially 'but'. I know this sentence is the result of a long edit war and I do not propose my version as the final one. But please do try to improve and not to revert as the new version is undoubtly considerably clearly better than the old. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pukkie (talk • contribs) 08:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that clear improvement. Please go on. Vb10:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.175.206.41 (talk)

The 'but' had become meaningless because an earlier edit had wiped the immediately preceding part of the phrase. I restored the entire original sentence, which is - between double quotes - a translation of a full literal quote, properly attributed and with the sentence in its original language quoted in the reference. One is not free to tamper with literal quotes. Vb knew this very well, as he participated in a long discussion that had only ended after this full literal quote had been given instead of a phrase that referred to it. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 14 Nov2007 00:38 (UTC)

Your translation is very poor but since this article is your OWN please change it as you want. Or better keep it as it is with gibberish tables etc... I don't care. Vb 07:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Partition of Belgium

I recently created this article, in light of the recent political crisis; major newspapers have noted rising separatism in the country. As it has some bearing in history and modern Belgian life, I feel it is important to note this separatism in the "Government and Politics" section of this article - of course, I wouldn't do it without prior discussion. K a r n a 21:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

fwg

it is a good country —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.94.116 (talk) 01:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

History: Belgium founded as a catholique country ?

In the History section I read: "[..]establishment of a [..] Catholic Belgium [..]". Although the vast majority of inhabitants were catholic, I would say it is a bridge to far to call it a Catholic country, especially in the light of state-religion separation. Am I right, guys? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.39.76.53 (talk) 15:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by 86.39.76.53 moved to the bottom, for clarity JurgenG (talk) 18:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Constitution of 1831 established a careful balance between Catholics and Liberals. So there was separation of Church and State, but the Catholic Church was, for instance, given the right to found schools (freedom of education). But I think that bit refers to the dissatisfaction of the Catholics in the Southern Netherlands with what were perceived as attempts of the Protestant King William I to interfere with the Catholic Church, such as the establishment of a Philosphical College in Leuven. This was one of the causes of the Belgian Revolution.--Ganchelkas (talk) 20:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Please archive this page

432kB! This is unheard of! —Viriditas | Talk 09:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)