Talk:Brussels-Capital Region

Archives

Previous naming discussions for the municipalities in the Brussels region:

/NamingArchive1 ("French names" & move request January 2006)
/NamingArchive2 ("Names of the 19 communities (again)" Aug-Dec 2006)
/NamingArchive3 (names survey Dec 2006-Jan 2007)

-- Out of Place -- "The following is clearly out of place in a neutral article. Among all major migrants groups from outside the EU, a majority of the permanent residents have acquired the Belgian nationality. Since the 2000 Nationality Law (snel-Belgwet or Quickly-Belgian law in Dutch), knowledge (even basic) of a Belgian national language is no longer compulsory and there are thus e.g. Belgian Turks who can't speak or understand French or Dutch."

Removed matter

I removed the following matter:

The population of this area is dominantly French-speaking, altough the entire agglomeration was initially Dutch-speaking, except for the royal court, nobility and 'haute-bourgeoisie' that were French-speaking since several centuries. Important minorities are: nationals from many European Union-countries, USA, UK and Canada, and of 'guest-workers and their families, mainly southern-Europe and North-Africa, and more recently from Central and Eastern-Europa.

Redundant with Comtemporary Brussels and History of Brussels sections of Brussels' article. Must be merged if appropriate. --Edcolins 20:37, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Dear, looking back after a while, it looks like most contributors see the use of having these two separate entries. That allows also for a greater accuracy and precision in the descriptions, and in the actual information. However, i do agree that we should avoid double and redundant information. --Lucas Richards 14:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creation year

The Region was created in 1989, not 1993 [1]. --Edcolins 11:19, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry.But on the Dutch apge there stand independent in 1993.

Brussels Region

I don't see why the "Brussels region" colloquial name should be removed along with its translation. Please explain. --Edcolins 11:19, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

Now there stands The Brussels-Capital Region (Région de Bruxelles-Capitale in French, Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest in Dutch, Region Brüssel-Hauptstadt in German) or Brussels Region (Région Bruxelloise in French, Brusselse Gewest in Dutch) is one of the three regions of Belgium.

I think

The Brussels-Capital Region or Brussels Region (Région de Bruxelles-Capitale or Région Bruxelloise in French, Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest or Brusselse Gewest in Dutch and Region Brüssel-Hauptstadt in German) is one of the three regions of Belgium.

is better.

I agree. Yeah, it looks better. Go ahead. --Edcolins 18:54, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

Why remove any reference to the Flemings in brussels beingt part of the Flemish community / nation?

Ed Collins, I saw your rewording of the introduction, but why removing that factual information that is supported by 100% of the Fleminsh politicians from Brussels? --Rudi Dierick 20:15, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Rudy, thanks for your comment. My edits [2] were intended to express that the Flemish Community and the French Community of Belgium are institutions on the political front at least. I am not denying that many inhabitants of Brussels may identify themselves with the political institutions, but that is more on the sociological front. On this front, Brussels contains many communities: let's say the community of French-speaking inhabitants, the community of Dutch-speaking inhabitants, the catholic community, the gay community, the community of European Union civil servants, the wikipedian community, and so on and so forth... Like every modern city in the world which is composed of many communities, I do think.

It would be nice to find opinion polls on this issue maybe, and refer to it in the article, that would be rather interesting. --Edcolins 22:09, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

Dear, my question was maybe not properly worded. It was not about the sociologigal aspects of the very diverse brussels population, but specifically about the political fact (that 100% pf the current flemish politicians in brussels support being part of the Flemish Community), and about the cultural and institutional reality (as laid down in the constitution). So, my qustion was why we should not first alk abot the most general thing, being that brussels has basically two 'cnstituent' ethnic groups, Flemings and French-speakers? More detailled information should, as far as I understood general Wikipedia guidelines, and common practice in encyclopedia, be referred to later parapgraphs or more specialised articles. E.g. the correct information that you added appears perfectly on its place under the subtitle 'Institutions'. As you did not give any reason (nor when cutting out hat information), nor later, I re-instated that bit of factual information that, as far as I can assess is indeed crucial in understanding brussels.

The problem with classifying Brussels inhabitants into communities is that it does not fit with the legal reality. As far as I know, Belgian ID cards do not mention in which community you are belonging. You can considered yourself as belonging to the both community or none of these communities. --Edcolins 16:31, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

In reference to the point made by EdColins about the fact that it does not fit the 'legal reality', and your ID card does not mention it. That is not entirely true, as Belgian you are classified either as a Dutch, French or German speaker. You can easily verify this by checking your ID card. if it says "België Belgique Belgien Belgium" on top you are part of the Flemish community, "Belgique ...", you are part of the French community and "Belgien, ... " you are part of the German community. --Riverburn 12:25, Oct 31, 2019

I'm not ure to understand what point you are making? What do you want to suggest as a conclusion? --Rudi Dierick

@Rudi, The point I was making was in reply to Edcolin's assumption that "Belgian ID cards do not mention in which community you are belonging". They do mention this. In Belgium you either Belong to the Dutch, French or German speaking community, legally speaking, and this is reflected by the primary language on your ID card. --Riverburn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riverburn (talk • contribs) 14:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mean according to me an inhabitant of Brussels do not belong to either the "Flemish Community in Belgium" or to the "French Community of Belgium". To my humble opinion, these two expressions legally refer only to administrative and political institutions which have certain competencies in the domain of culture and education for instance. One inhabitant of Brussels may be speak Dutch and attend a cultural activity funded by the "French Community of Belgium". Or the other way around. It is possible of course to talk about sociological, cultural, linguistic or religious communities, but almost every modern city presents such a diversity of communities. As a conclusion, I mean that there is no need to mention that the Flemings in Brussels belongs to the community of Flemings (of Flanders, Belgium and the world). It is a tautology. Does my point of view make sense? --Edcolins 20:11, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for implicitelt ("according to me ") acknowleddging that this is just a personal opinion. I invite you to consider the objective and verifiable fact that ALL Flemish politicians in Brussels, as well as the 99% of its entire socio-cultural and political organisations (except for very few) consistently stress that they are Flemings andf want to remain so. Moreover, in terms of political communities, 99% of the votes in brussels are given to political parties that all belong very spcifically to just one of the two communities, and that ALL are also active either in Wallonia, or in Flanders, being the 'heartland' of either community. Even the French-speaking FDF, now part of the MR, is not a truly 'brussels' party as it gathers support only from French-speakers, and not from any Flkeming in brussels! As such, many speak of Brussels as as 'bridge' between the two communities. So, whenever this article wants to he complete and scientifcally correct, this objective reality MUST be mentionned (especially given the fierce atempts of some French-speakers to isolate the Flkemings in Brussels from the others.

merge with Brussels

We should merge this article with Brussels, the capital of Belgium. It's too ambiguous at this moment, we have Brussels, Brussels-Capital Region and the City of Brussels. There are really two articles needed, the first being the proposed merged article about the Capital of Belgium, Brussels as most people call it, aka Brussels-Capital Region and the second article about the city of Brussels, one of the 19 municipalities of the Capital. moyogo 02:06, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC) I guess for the sake of consistency with other wikis (fr and nl) we should merge the other way, Brussels -> Brussels-Capital Region. moyogo 03:20, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)

This is a definitive no-no. I don't think you get the difference right. Brussels and Brussels-Capital Region should not been merged, they represent two different concepts. Brussels is a (rather old) city, in the sense of "an agglomeration including suburban and satellite areas". Strictly speaking, it is arbitrary to draw a clear boundary between what falls within "Brussels" and what falls outside "Brussels", no matter how controversial this may seem in Belgium. The opposite is true for the (rather young) "Brussels-Capital Region", defined by the recent amended constitution as a clear geographical, politicial, administrative and linguistic entity. Brussels was there before Belgium existed and will certainly be there for long. The Brussels-Capital Region is 15 years-old only, and might only be a temporary political arrangement. --Edcolins 07:17, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

I think I get the difference right, we simply disagree. I'm not suggesting we blur the differences but I'm suggesting we put the content of both pages in one place. The content of Brussels-Capital Region should not be bigger than just politics and demographics. Brussels should have historical, political, demographical and geographical information. Right now there's just gonna be redundant information. Does Paris have Paris and Paris Department? No, they are both merged. The political entity Paris Department is merged into Paris, the city we all know. I think it makes total sense to include the political entity of Brussels in the article about Brussels. But we have the right to differ, I won't go ahead and force what seems obvious to me. What's even weirder is that the fr and nl wikis have only 2 articles, but Brussels -> the City of Brussels (the municipality) and Brussels-Capital Region. I'm not sure it makes sense to point to just a part of Brussels when someone would want an article about the whole city (not just the municipality). ---moyogo 13:17, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

Paris and Paris Department might not have separate articles but there is another (significative) example: London, Greater London (the administrative region) and the City of London. --Edcolins 08:29, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

I get your point. I still disagree. I think Brussels-Region should just be the administrative and political section of the more general Brussels article. But there's no point arguing for this, as long as it's not confusing for the user. Should we move the InfoBox from Brussels to Brussels-Region to follow your logic? Should we move the redundant information and clearly point to it? ---moyogo 11:02, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)

Yes, go ahead, move the infobox. That's a perfectly consistent proposal. --Edcolins 19:27, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Institutions

The section about institutions does not reflect the reality, which is much more complex, with reserved seats for the Flemish minority in the regional parliament etc. It is obvious for people who are informed of the situation, but the present article leads others to confusion. Awaiting the development of this article, I think it's wise to add a political stub status banner. --Pylambert 19:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I hope my additions have solved this problem MaartenVidal 14:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed much clearer, even if it remains quite difficult to understand these institutions, only because they really are complicated ! --Pylambert 14:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

French-speakers vs. flemings in Brussels

Take a photo of every single building of every street in Brussels. Add up all the Dutch words and all the French words used. Compare totals. You will then see how Vlaams Brussels really is. Brussels is a de facto French-speaking city, where a de jure bilingual French/Dutch regime is imposed as a halfway house between the current largely French-speaking reality and the Flemings' desired Dutch monolingualism. — 64.103.37.71 • talk • contribs – 7 Jun 2006 10:40 (UTC) (was unsigned, undated)

My personal experience (based on hunderds of discussions with EU-nationals from many countries, and with often booth Flemings and Belgian French-speakers included) is that most Flemings here in Brussels are nicely monolingual, and thus give the superficial observer an overly pessimistic view of the number of Flemings around. However, once you start getting to know those folks a bit better, you start finding out there are much more Flemings living in brussels then what you 'hear' at first.

This confusing impressions of superficial observers correspond with the statements of a few Flemings that were very sharp. They pointed out that even on the Flemish national holiday (somewhere in June), many Flemings institutions and especially cultural centres and individuals prefer not to show their flags, some out of fear for violent reactions from French-speaking radicals, some because they don't want to "provoke" the French-speakers, some for a combination of these and other reasons. Once, I even heard a priest sitting in the council of a local centre state this. No wonder, with such a cowardly attitude that all those christian churches are losing appeal and followers (sorry for the stingy remark, could not help). --Lucas Richards 22:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Official manifestations of Flemishness are not done in a spirit of "this is also our city" but rather in a spirit of "this is our city alone" (cf. Flanders unilateral decision to appoint Brussels its capital even though the city/region is also the political and cultural centre of gravity for French speakers in Belgium - and is legally no more Flemish than French-speaking according to the Beglian constitution). It is this attitude I believe that leads to a defensive reaction on the part of French-speakers, when they not the Flemish are the de facto majority. If Flemings spoke in line with the correct Belgian legal reality i.e. that Brussels is a bilingual city at the heart of Belgium officially equally Flemish and French-speaking, they would find less hostility to manifestations of Flemishness among French-speakers. But as it is, these manifestations in their current form are correctly perceived as agressive. Flanders consistently speaks in a way that denies the legitimacy of a French-speaking population in Brussels. I visited Ghent on the Flemish national day a couple of years ago - not a Vlaamse Leeuw in sight... so why is it used in Brussels? — 64.103.37.72 • talk • contribs – 9 Jun 2006 10:24-10:28 (UTC) (was unsigned, undated, and got afterwards interrupted by other contributors (mainly Lucas Richards) - thus this comment is found once more severely fragmented though partially rephrased hereunder and now put in italics for clarity)

"My personal experience (based on hunderds of discussions with EU-nationals from many countries, and with often booth Flemings and Belgian French-speakers included) is that most Flemings here in Brussels are nicely monolingual." I'm sorry, are you saying that most Flemings in Brussels are monolingual= only speak Dutch? You were talking about impressions and wrong impressions, before we argue I wanna find out whether or not we really disagree :)Evilbu 20:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Official manifestations of Flemishness are not done in a spirit of "this is also our city" but rather in a spirit of "this is our city alone" (cf. Flanders unilateral decision to appoint Brussels its capital

Knowing several French-speaking as well as Flkemish politicians from Brussels, I have heard this claim also. However, when I attend those manifestations, and when I see the policy of the respective cultural authporities (COCOF for the French-speakers and VGC for the Flemings), it appears just the other way round! Nearly all Flemisgh manifestations underline the multi-ethnic status of Brussels, with both French-speakers and Flemings as the two 'native' communities, and lots of other migrant minorities, whereas such an openess is clearly not the stadard for manifestations organised by the COCOF. This statement therefore appears to me a very partisan point oif view. No wonder it is an anonymous one. --Lucas Richards 13:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on. Multiculturalness is something else. Flanders uses "multiculturalism" to dilute French in Brussels. "French is spoken, yes but so is Arabic etc." I don't advocate the use of French over Flemish in a Belgian context. I think we just need to be honest that Brussels is the capital of Belgium in a legal and real sense - and to assert anything else risks disenfranchising some of its inhabitants. — 64.103.37.69 • talk • contribs – 13 Jun 2006 08:31 (UTC) (was unsigned, undated)

even though the city/region is also the political and cultural centre of gravity for French speakers in Belgium - and is legally no more Flemish than French-speaking according to the Beglian constitution).

As several other contributors to the French and English languages pages on this and related topics already pointed out:

* According to the Belgian constitution, all regional and community authorities have a very large autonomy. As part of that, they all enjoy the full right to chose their capitals theirselves. ALL of them did this, and none consulted with the other one. So, the fact that you blame Flanders, for something that ALL French-speaking federal governements did to, appears wholly partisan, and not objective as required by Wikipedia.

* There is only one known case where an institution from one of the regional/community governements did not respect the territorial limits established in the Belgian constitution, being when the Walloon export agency located it's office outside Wallonia, in Brussels. That choice is quite understandable of course. --Lucas Richards 13:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point. You actually agree with me. I mean that Brussels as Flemish capital is only meaningful as far as Flanders chose it to be so (yes, like the French community, although the French-speakers refer to it as the Belgian capital first and foremost). However, other capital status' which Brussels has are more meaningful outside of a strictly legal sense: - Belgian capital: The two main communities are present there. All people in Brussels who are not nationals of other countries are nationals of Belgium. Road names are in the 2 main languages etc. - EU capital: All Europeans have a right to live and work there and all the officially registered local "nationals" are Europeans. A majority of the people in Brusses are EU and a majority of the people living in Brussels would agree that Brussels is European and in Europe. BUT - Flemish capital: Brussels only houses the Flemish institutions - and has a historical reality as part of a Dutch/Low German/Germanic-speaking region. A majority of the people in Brussels are not Flemish and a majority of the people living in Brussels would deny that Brussels is Flemish or in Flanders.

Dear why insist on a non-issue? You suggest that 'most' Flemings and/or official Flemish institutions would have an 'exclusive' claim on Brussels. However, this is a groos lie! Flemings just want to enjoy their rights in Brussels as legally recognised inhabitants and as the original population of this city! So the fact that other capital functions have a wider geographical scope appears irrelevant to me. In a democracy, even minorities have guaranteed rights. And those Flemings don't deny they're a minority. --Lucas Richards 11:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is this attitude I believe that leads to a defensive reaction on the part of French-speakers, when they not the Flemish are the de facto majority.

What do you mean exactly? Maybe some words got lost in this sentence? --Lucas Richards 13:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that the Flemish are an actual - if not legal - minority in Brussels. As a result, when they assert that Brussels is their capital it is offensive to French-speakers because what then is the capital of the French-speaking majority that inhabits the city?

Wouw, do you realise the implication of what you said here? This means that ALL minority groups (as the protestants and muslims in belgium, as the Greens, ...) should keep a low profile in order not to provoke the overly sensible majority-members. I really don't see why it would be offsenive when Flemings want to be part of Brussels. After all, this city is French-majority only since less then one century?. The first 3/4 of its history, it was a flemish-only city, and it was Frenchified by brute discrimination as from the french period only! --Lucas Richards 11:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Flemish people asserted the unity of Belgium and Brussels as a jointly Flemish-French city at the heart of it - and (important) that they saw the French-language culture that is present in Brussels is a positive thing that should continue to exist and which also has historical legitimacy, they would see a much more positive reaction. I am English speaking by the way.

On what basis do you think that this is the Flemish point of view? It looks to me that you are quite ignorant about this! your description is more or less that what the french-speaking press and politicians pretend it is. However, that is a groos distortion from reality. having several Flemish AND French-speaking friends, this massive gap in perception has become clear to me.

More precisely: If Flemings spoke in line with the correct Belgian legal reality i.e. that Brussels is a bilingual city at the heart of Belgium officially equally Flemish and French-speaking, they would find less hostility to manifestations of Flemishness among French-speakers. But as it is, these manifestations in their current form are correctly perceived as agressive.

See my earlier remark: looks like you only know how the French describe the Flemings, but not at all the actual political programmes and actions of flkemish institutions, politicians, ... --Lucas Richards 11:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is plain silly: what irritates the extrfemists among the French-speakers is just ANY expression of Flemish identity and belonging to Brussels! --Lucas Richards 13:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does Brussels need a Flemish identity? Is it not enough that the Dutch language is co-official. Saying it is Flemish rather than Dutch speaking, what does that mean? Do Brussels people behave in a Flemish way. Flemish people drink beer and like tennis and football, like French speakers. What is "Flemish" about Brussels? The architecture of the main square? Do buildings have nationality or language? Brussels has its own identity.

Flanders consistently speaks in a way that denies the legitimacy of a French-speaking population in Brussels. I visited Ghent on the Flemish national day a couple of years ago - not a Vlaamse Leeuw in sight... so why is it used in Brussels?

Hi there, just wanted to add my 2 cents:

1st cent: are there any extremists among the French-speakers (I mean extremist towards Flemish people)? Could someone explain this to me?
2nd cent: i fail to see how flemish people were "original population of this city". Wasn't brusseleer that used to be spoken in Brussels? To my knowledge there was no (stupid) fight between flemish and walloons in brussels before the second world war, thus no criterion to name people "flemish" or "walloons" except the language. Then is brusseleer a variation of dutch or french? To me: neither of them...

I hope those comments will not make our friend Lucas angry, I just ask questions to help the discussion to be a little more precise for people not familiar with the topic. Julien Tuerlinckx 17:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1st question :

Democratic Front of Francophones ! This party is a Frenchspeaking party in Flanders. They embody the concept of French imperialism.

I'll leave the second question to someone else, but I don't think you can call this fight stupid. Easy for you to say when your language (I checked your Babel Box)is the strongest one...Evilbu 19:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Nen Brusseleer" is a male and "een Brusseles" a female inhabitant of Brussels (ethymological name Broekzele, clearly Dutch language) and they spoke "Brussels", the Dutch-language dialect of Brussels that belongs to the Brabantian (also named Brabantic) dialect group of the Duchy of Brabant. The term 'Flemish' used to be limited to the neighbouring Countship of Flanders but in relatively more recent times came to be used for all related dialects, including the Brussels dialect (as the term 'Flamand' that by the French speaking south had possibly been generalized even earlier because to them it all sounded the same); by the time Belgium became regionalized, 'Flemish' had become quite common for al Dutch dialects spoken in Belgium, and 'Flanders' encompassed the whole area, including Brussels as far as the native language still went. By the regionalization, 'Flanders' as far as it is used for a synonym of the 'Flemish Region', lost Brussels but there are still native speakers of the Dutch language dialect - this explains partially why the region chose its capital there, stating they won't abandon them. This is also institutionally correct as the powers of the Flemish Community do extend to the Brussels-Capital Region. There is still no French-language dialect of Brussels, one hears standard French [in the Belgian style, e.g. 70='septante' 90='nonante', not 'soixante-dix' and 'quatre-vingt-dix'] or such with varying influences by several Walloon dialects. French influence in Brussels started by the French nation state occupying the country, followed by a short episode under Dutch control (United Netherlands), separation from which was most unanymously supported by speakers of French, though also speakers of Dutch (Catholic) had problems with the Dutch king. Early independent Belgium was strictly French-speaking for all official matters. Army officers had to be (natively) French-speaking; the death of many Flemish soldiers in World War I could have been avoided if some officers would have understood Dutch/Flemish or could have given understandable commands. That was one of the more prominent causes that started an 'emancipation' of Flanders on a wider scale. But by then the capital that housed so many official institutions had become completely dominated by speakers of French, including many of native Dutch-speaking origin who had to send their children to French-speaking schools so as to offer them a future, which explains why lots of French-speakers in the Brussels area, have a typically Flemish family name. — SomeHuman 19 Dec 2006 03:57-04:19 (UTC)

Population number

Hello,

not all questions need to be controversial :), I noticed that the Dutch [3]and French [4]articles give a different number for the population : 1,018,804. I calculated the sum of the number of inhabitants for all communities in the Region that were given on the Dutch Wikipedia, and found the exact same number. Note that those Dutch articles claim it's from a 01/01/2006 census. Unless we use a different definition of the region or its inhabitants, I think there is no reason to revert it? Evilbu 20:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Names survey, result

Between 23 December 2006 and 28 January 2007 there has been a survey about which names the articles for the municipalities in the Brussels region should have. The municipalities in question have different names in French and Dutch, the two official languages of the region. A majority of contributors to the survey prefers using one single same over using both names in the title. This single name should follow English usage, which has been determined using domain specific Google searches.

The final result of the survey is that:

for the following municipalities the French name has been chosen, in line with the most commonly used names in English:
for the following municipalities no significant preference in the English language has been found. After discussion, the Dutch names have been chosen:
- Sint-Jans-Molenbeek
- Sint-Agatha-Berchem

Details about the survey can be found at Talk:Brussels-Capital Region/NamingArchive3. Markussep 18:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Official names

The page should be moved to Brussels Region. The constitution : http://www.senate.be/doc/const_nl.html (Dutch) or http://www.fed-parl.be/constitution_uk.html (English) David Descamps 15:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense, but it is what the constitution's art. 3 obviously suggests. David already aknowledged my showing by a link in his language on his talk page, that articles 134 and 138 etc prove both the long and the short names for the region to be official, and the Brussels-Capital Region uses the longer name on its official web site. — SomeHuman 2 Jan 2007 05:46 (UTC)

"Small" population of EU citizens?

According to the Institut Bruxellois de Statistique et d'Analyse, there were 158,230 EU-citizen foreigners living in the Brussels-Capital Region. This represents 15.4% of the total population of the region. In whose mind is this a "small" population. Especially when one considers that this is roughly equal to (or exceeding) the percentage of Dutch-speaking Belgians who live in the region, as reported in the article. I have removed the word "small" and added the actual population figures for EU foreigeners. --Deregnaucourt 17:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latin Europe

Hello Brussels-Capital Region! There is a vote going on at Latin Europe that might interest you. Please everyone, do come and give your opinion and votes. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the last time: all Brussels municipalities should be named in both Dutch and French, also in the title

It may very well be that a majority of English-language users of Wikipedia prefer to name the 19 municipalities of Brussels by one single name, but especially in the title that would be wrong, as all municipalities are officially bilingual in Dutch and French. Using only one of the languages would be imposing an English mentality on a Belgian reality. It would also be correct to use the English term "municipalities" instead of the French term "communes", as the 19 communes are also "gemeenten"...

By the same token, virtually all the towns in Flanders should be named by their Dutch name only, even if some (like De Panne, Mechelen and Voeren) have a French name as well. That is because the 308 municipalities of Flanders have Dutch as their only official language, even though a handfull (like Sint-Genesius-Rode) recognize French as a secondary language.

Could this error be corrected once and for all?!

78.20.241.152 (talk) 18:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC) Diederik Knaeps, Belgium[reply]

This isn't an error but a properly discussed decision. Dutch names are used when the municipality is in Flanders, unless there is a widely used English name (Antwerp, Bruges, Ghent, Brussels, etc.). Wikipedia doesn't have to abide to Belgian politics, we mention what the local names are, and use names English speakers know and expect. If one day people call Antwerp Antwerpen in English we'll change the article accordingly, like Mechelen used to be called Mechlen in English. If this is imposing English mentality on a Belgian reality then why are French and Dutch Wikipedia's not using both language names for article titles? Or are you implying they are imposing one reality over the Belgian one? --moyogo (talk) 08:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

btw where do we use the term commune in Brussels' or Belgium's related articles? --moyogo (talk) 08:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Woluwe-Saint-Pierre - Sint-Pieters-Woluwe"

Woluwe-Saint-Pierre now redirects to a page with a bilingual title, despite the Brussels naming conventions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pokflok (talk • contribs) 13:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Oreo Priest ^talk 14:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't that article be renamed to the English name Saint-Peters-Woluwe? PPP (talk) 09:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

English-language sources unfortunately mostly use the French names and didn't anglicise such names. SPQRobin (talk) 11:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]