Talk:Municipalities with linguistic facilities

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 German speaking community vs German language region 2 railways 3 Factual sources of the information needed 4 official denomination

[edit] German speaking community vs German language region

I wonder whether the title "Municipalities in Wallonia belonging to the German speaking community with French-language facilities" shouldn't be replaced by "Municipalities in Wallonia belonging to the German language region with French-language facilities" ("German language region" comes from Art.4 of the Belgian Constitution: in Dutch "België omvat vier taalgebieden : het Nederlandse taalgebied, het Franse taalgebied, het tweetalige gebied Brussel-Hoofdstad en het Duitse taalgebied." or in French "La Belgique comprend quatre régions linguistiques : la région de langue française, la région de langue néerlandaise, la région bilingue de Bruxelles-Capitale et la région de langue allemande.") ??? -- Edcolins 17:46, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

I think that would indeed be better, so no problem at all for me if changed. D.D. 20:28, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

That might be confusing. te Belgian constitution has two different concepts: regions as one of the instituional levels (3) and linguistic areas (4 such areas). In the French version of the constitution, the same word is used for both (région), while the Ducth has two different words (gewesten (3) and 'taalgebieden', where the word 'taalgebied' translates in English in 'linguitic areas' or something like that. the word gebied translating in 'area', 'region' and 'territories'.

Moreover, as of today, altough many german-speakers (including theur minister-president) would like to obtain the regional institutions (and thus seperate from Wallonia), maybe using German language area or German language territory is more precise. Just an idea. --Rudi Dierick 14:55, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Belgium is divided in 3 regions (Brussels, Flanders and Wallonia) and 3 communities (German speaking, French speaking and Dutch speaking).Julien Tuerlinckx 00:22, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] railways

In "in addition, in certain such municipalities, there are also publicly funded schools for the language minority, as well as railway services", I don't grasp the "railway" part. Does this allude to the extension of the Brussels's STIB/MIVB tram network outside of Brussels and inside Flanders ? Regardless of who's paying for these rails, I fail to see how they relate to facilities. Rails don't talk, AFAIK. --FvdP 03:22, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Information given in railway stations in municipalities with language facilities is also gibven in the minority language. Regards

[edit] Factual sources of the information needed

Removed two subjective parts:

"Most of those French-speakers did want to respect the equal rights of the local Flemish population. They acted as if they had superior rights."

and

"That Flemings who migrate towards Wallonia integrate fairly well, whereas many French-speakers migrating to the Flemish region do not, or only partially."

Are there any opinion polls showing this? Please cite your sources. Verifiable facts needed. --Edcolins 13:47, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

There is indeed a HUGE typographic error in the first sentence, correct wording being "Most of those French-speakers did not want to respect the equal rights of the local Flemish population. They acted as if they had superior rights.". This is generally accepted knowledge among all scientists publishing on these topics. One of the indications is that the same 30 and 50% thresholds were used to determine these muncipalities, and how the percentages evolved since: in Wallonie, the minority integrated and its percentage of the population rather declined. Around Brussels, the percentage of French-speakers hugely increased, and in the other Flemish cities onthe border with Wallonie, it apparently remained more or less stable (or decreased slightly). Do you deny this? Or are you just sceptical? --Rudi Dierick 20:25, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please cite your sources. Claiming "This is generally accepted knowledge among all scientists publishing on these topics" is not enough to allow everyone to verify your claims. Your interpretation seems to be original research of yours. --Edcolins 08:25, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

Some sources (I assume, as you insist on discussing community issues in belgium, that you are certainly capable of understandng the foolowing quotes): De Morgen van 5 feb 2005, p.30-31, tweepaginalang interview met Beatrice Delvaux en Luc Delfosse, resp. hoofdredacteur en adjunct-hoofdredacteur van Le Soir.

Delvaux: "Franstaligen die in Vlaanderen wonen en geen Nederlands spreken, dat gaat er bij mij niet in. Ik woon zelf in Vlaanderen en heb met mijn buren nog nooit spontaan Frans gesproken."

Waar in Vlaanderen woont u?

Delvaux: "Dilbeek. (hilariteit). Ja, ja, Dilbeek, 'waar Vlamingen thuis zijn'. Ik vind het normaal dat ik in de winkel en op de voetbalclub Nederlands praat. En ik kan me ergeren aan Franstaligen die in een Nederlandstalige school hardnekkig Frans blijven spreken."

Delfosse: "Laat me het even wat brutaler zeggen. De Franstaligen in Vlaanderen kunnen zich zo niet blijven gedragen. De tijd van het kolonialisme is voorbij: in Kongo, in Indonesië, maar ook in de Brusselse rand. Franstaligen die zich in de Vlaamse rand vestigen, moeten Nederlands leren. Ik woon in Waals-Brabant, waar zich de laatste jaren duizenden Vlamingen vestigden. Zij spreken Frans, hun kinderen gaan naar een Franstalige school. Hun integratie verloopt heel snel en natuurlijk."

Dear, I do agree with your desire to obtain more authoritative information on this. However, as you know that I'm contributing quite a lot overhere, I am getting the feeling that there is a huge imbalance in this. Furthermore, I'm getting the feeling that several of the other contributors -speaking in general, not about you- on these pages are incapable of properly understanding Ducth. This creates the situation where people insist on their version of 'facts' where they are incapable of analysing relevant sources, and thus being reduced to what (in the case of Nicnac25) a very hostile and anti-Flemish press says about Flanders. --Rudi Dierick 11:40, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In addition, I have a very bad experience with providng sources on this kind of articles: whenever I do provide sources (and spend time looking things up), teher is only poor aknowledgemenet and acceptance, and certain contributors as Nicnac25 just continue as if I provided nothing at all, and continue imposing their partisan points of view (including, to give a recent example) the statement that in Flanders and Wallonia, the communiti--Rudi Dierick 11:40, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)es would have authority over the municipalities (which is a plain error, as it are the regions, everywhere).

As a final remark, most of the references I have on Flanders are in print, and often spread over a large number of books, making it a significant effort to get to precise references. As a general remark: the statements you asked for sources, are based on writings of different autors as prof. Philippe van Parijs (UCL), prof. Rudy Janssens (VUB), and press articles from Hugo Fonteyn (DS) and others.

To conclude: it is so cheap (as some others do) to erase whatever you don't like, never to provide any relevant, authoritative sources, and then to shout that I have to provide references. This is really not a 'satisfacory' working technique for Wikipedia, especailly as there is no 'sanction' at all for those who are systematically wrong and whom erronuously deleted information. Whenever I write opinion articles for the press (as my last on the referendum on the European constitution from friday 27 Jan in De Tijd), I make sure that I can substantiate any fact I mention. However, I hope you understand that with these forums so 'polluted' by people as Nicnac25, Im becoming very selective what requests for further information and sources I do answer and which not. By the way, if you prefer, we can continue this discussion on how to proceed also via email (rudi.dierick@skynet.be).

[edit] official denomination

Karel Anthonissen replaced 'Their official denomination is 'municipalities with a special status'.' by 'They are so-called 'municipalities with a special status'.' I don't understand why: this is the official denomination, the expression "communes à facilités" does not exist in legal texts. There are several official denominations: 'communes dotées d'un régime spécial en vue de la protection de leurs minorités' (communes that have been given a special regime in view of the protection of their minorities) or 'communes à régime spécial', divided into 2 categories, 'communes périphériques' (around Brussels) and 'communes de la frontière linguistique' (see: '18 JUILLET 1966. - Lois sur l'emploi des langues en matière administrative'). The other original law on this matter ('30 JUILLET 1963. - Loi concernant le régime linguistique dans l'enseignement') also refers to 'communes dotées d'un régime spécial en vue de la protection de leurs minorités'. For the rest, his modifications indeed neutralize the previous excesses of a Flemish nationalist, 'Rudi Dierick', about whom I think it would be wise to look at all his modifications on wikipedia, he seems obsessed by his Flemish nationalism and by his opposition against Turkey becoming a EU member, and his 'contributions' are mostly non-neutral. --Pylambert 10:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your observation. I can answer your question: the only reason for that particular change was that http://www.juridat.be/cgi_loi/legislation.pl only gives general acces to Belgian legislation, which is of no direct use to readers. It is nevertheless possible to make a more concrete link, for example the Law of July 18, 1966: in Dutch or in French. But even these are not very usefull to English readers. Karel Anthonissen 14:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)