Talk:Language legislation in Belgium

Untitled

Very pro-Flemish article : most walloons did not understand French either in the 1830s, they would also be tried without understanding all the proceedings... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.143.217.66 (talk) 22:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

POV and reference tag

This article needed to be written. It is a translation of the Dutch article on WP. It shows up the POV of the Flemings only and need to be reviewed by Belgian French-speaking editors. Adding well-balanced references is an urgent task which need to be done. Both tags should stay there until both points get addressed. Vb 15:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You are quite correct about the point of view from which this article had been written, but I had already eliminated several obvious breaches of WP:NPOV and you eliminated several such statements that were still remaining. I'm not so sure about Hammurabi though, that sentence was informative in situating the historical point of view and strategy of the Flemish (which itself has nothing to do with POV of the WP article, but it might have been phrased in a less suggestive POV way rather than be removed). I had also switched the language of place names (most of which do not have a common English usage) from all Dutch to that of the relevant language area. Nevertheless, there were also some French-speakers POVs depicted, such as the usage of the French-inspired 'linguistic region' instead of the in English far more commonly used 'language area' (which I switched) and the mentioning of the somewhat reluctant rendering of language facilities by the Peeters directive, whereas the article does not yet mention that precisely that kind of treatment of Dutch-speakers had since much earlier been normal in the French-speaking and bilingual areas.
Whereas I agree with the FACT tag, for the POV tag it is your burden to show on this talk page where there would now still be POV (or rather, no correct NPOV), according to what the POV tag directions state. Indeed, people do not have to start guessing what could now still be meant. Your claim that reviewers should be Belgian French-speakers violates the WP position on NPOV, though in this case I can understand your concern. You, however, are such French-speaker; so please continue what you just did, and it would not be a bad idea for you to find some proper sources either, who else is going to do it this time, do you think? — SomeHuman 18 Aug2007 17:37 (UTC)

Hello - I am neither French nor Dutch speaking and I am not Belgian. However, I do detect a distinct bias against Belgian French-language speakers in this article that I believe must be addressed. While I understand and believe that the Dutch-speaking peoples of Belgium were subject to linguistic discrimination by what was then the French-speaking elite of the country. I am equally certain that there was a point of view from their side that should be reflected in these articles.

More importantly, my understanding that the dispute today has resulted in unfairnesses against both linguistic populations. The current situation deserves (and readers should demand) a greater level of ballance and fairness when speaking of this conflict today.

It is shameful that either side should use Wikipedia to continue this conflict. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.245.21.175 (talk) 15:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The linguistic tensions of Belgium are a historic fact. Language legislation was (and is) required to "create a level playing field." In order for the reader to fully understand the Belgian condition there must be an explanation as to why the field was not even. You may be uncomfortable with the labels (French, Flemish, Dutch) but how else will the reader be informed? If the article was about Cival Rights legislation in America in the 1960's, it would require historic background. The uninformed reader would need to be informed of the horrific status of a segment of American society that led to the changes in Law.--Buster7 (talk) 14:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has been dormant for over two years now. Since 16/08/2007 Vb has neglected to specify which sections are POV, nor has he made changes to the article. I have left him a message, in order to remind him of this tag.--91.181.192.228 (talk) 16:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I've added some references, and I will continue in the days to come.--Btsz (talk) 23:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I've gone through the entire article, and provided references where I thought they were needed. I also made some minor changes as to make the article neutral. I hope both tags can be removed. I'm open to suggestions to further improve this article.--Btsz (talk) 17:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Both tags removed on 30 August 2010.--Btsz (talk) 13:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

POV

The last section represents the Flemish POV only. The facts may be true but must be counterbalanced with French-speaking POV. The French-speakers have also the feeling their rights are not respected. 93.193.121.184 (talk) 09:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you elaborate? (WP:NPOV) I suspect you have a problem with the second paragraph. You are welcome to add facts which indicate that French-speakers' rights are violated.--Btsz (talk) 14:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the POV tag, since the IP user didn't elaborate. I've also deleted a major part of the second paragraph ("and about the fact that municipalities with language facilities in the French-speaking language area in some instances do not respect the language freedom of their Dutch-speaking inhabitants. Thus, for example, Comines-Warneton (here) has no Dutch web site, although Mouscron (here) and Enghien (here) have one. In any case, all Dutch municipalities with facilities: Mesen, Spiere-Helkijn, Ronse, Bever, Wemmel, Drogenbos, Linkebeek, Sint-Genesius-Rode (on = vlaanderen.be), Wezembeek-Oppem, Kraainem and Voeren have a bilingual site, and sometimes also offer information in English. The municipality of Herstappe with only a hundred inhabitants, has no web site yet."), since there is no source that supports that this leads / lead to tensions.--Btsz (talk) 09:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC) This excellent Wikipedia article show that a reasonable, healthy competitors between state languages always give a positive impulse for the Vollkswitschaft for politics as well as for the Geselschaft (the Beispielle show us the Schwitzer country and the Russian Federation) .What language, the elite who nation Suggest a better condition's for the country and for the country population, this language is gehert of Vollksmehrheit, fined and spread by itself the aslo show us the experiences Bureau "N" and Bureau "F" of the Royal prosecution and the judiciary, -. courts for francophon's / courts for niderlandofon's, etc. Unfortunately, foreign powers to try it again this peaceful intilektueler - kultureler competitors - to verscherfen conflict to transfer to another Dimensieon. And, generate political benefits. Just as in the case ... Yes, e.g. So as to downgrade the country in International Rayting happened on AAB level. On the other hand. Exestieren a small group of language effectively - Fanat's. As Tiffosi on Football Arena. This made peep and pipe. They want "a goal in the Belgian football goal posts".Compatriot Belgë (talk) 17:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC) So, even in recent times. On Place du Jeu de Balle, 23, Brussels. Attacked unknowns not - the Niderlandofonen is Flemish Charity garnishing "Buurthuis". Battered showcase, verbal degradations of staff is Flemish.Vriend23456789 (talk) 15:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Language legislation in Belgium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071020011839/http://binnenland.vlaanderen.be:80/regelgeving/omzendbrieven/omz16.12.1997.htm to http://www.binnenland.vlaanderen.be/regelgeving/omzendbrieven/omz16.12.1997.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)