Wikipedia:Featured article review/Belgium/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 22:26, August 10, 2007.

[edit] Belgium

[edit] Review commentary

WP Belgium notified.

previous FAR

Note on closing: listed at WP:FFA as re-promoted.

Disputed neutrality. Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 16:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

comment The disputed neutrality is well documented in the talk page. Many progress has been done since the POV label has been set. However several points are still to be addressed:

• In the lead: the choice of the "enclave" word is a Flemish POV. See article de Gordel to understand why putting this fact at such a position in the text is a political issue!

• The paragraph:

In 2006, the country's largest French-speaking university published a survey report calling Flanders' leadership in speaking multiple languages "undoubtedly wellknown", and showing this lead to be considerable : of the Flemish respondents 59% could speak French and 53% English; of the Walloons on the other hand, only 19% Dutch and 17% English; of the Brussels' residents, 95% declared they can 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% of people under forty can speak all three forementioned languages. In each region, Belgium's third official language, German, is notably less known than those.[50][51][46]

is still utterly Flemish POVed. Its only aim is to prove the reader that Walloons are not adapted to our "increasingly globalizing epoch". I agree with the content but NPOV style should be carefully used. Several reversed suggestion have been proposed in the past. Vb 11:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why the word "enclave" is a problem and I know de Gordel. An enclave is in political geography "a (part of a) country mostly surrounded by the territory of another country or wholly lying within the boundaries of another country." The region Brussels is a legally defined region that is completely surrounded by the Flemish constitutionally defined region. In what way does the word enclave then constitute a Flemish POV? I can only think of a francophone POV as Brussels is part of the Flemish (and francophone) community and as a consequence Brussels is only a enclave in one way (region, not community). Sijo Ripa 12:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The word enclave is not a problem. The problem is to put this word in the lead. This provides an emphase to this word which is not required by anything except POV-pushing. User:Marskell had already provided a simple compromise which had been refused by User:SomeHuman. Vb 06:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Vb should stop his continued deliberate misleading in order to push his POV: "not required by anything" is clearly and repeatedly contradicted on the talk page of Belgium: The presentation of Belgian areas does belong in the lead (that was never questioned), and all 4 areas of that sentence have their location mentioned; contrarily leaving only the location of Brussels out is ostentative POV-pushing and cripples the paragraph. Moreover, the sentence was modified before Vb's POV-tagging to express 'an enclave within Flanders and near Wallonia': how NPOV can it be? Here above, even Sijo Ripa who had started the former FAR, and Dionysos on the talk page cannot see anything POV in the paragraph — and the latter supports my rendering of the other by Vb disputed phrase:
• The other sentence is not flattering for Walloons but that does not make it a breach of WP:NPOV: the sentence is the very carefully formulated rendering of the words of a French-speaking professor (cosigned by an American Jewish professor) of Economics, published in French by the most highly reputed Walloon university, as expressed in the highly visible introduction of a report. Another academic criticized the report because the author(s) stick(s) to a pro-French-speaking bias, and deeper in the report things are worded more strongly than in the WP article. And the report was quoted by the major Walloon quality newspaper, Le Soir, as well as by a major newspaper in the Netherlands (all referenced, while the report had been cited elsewhere as well), thus certainly notable. See strong argumentation on the talk page of Belgium, and above all: do read the French-language source; WP does not allow "assuming" some false POV accusation to be possibly right, only because one cannot read and understand a French-language reference that proves otherwise. And for a sensitive statement like the disputed one, one cannot start tampering with what the scolars in the referenced source point out to be most important: the phrase could never show a nice balance between Flemings and Walloons, thus with a modified rendering, it would be WP that makes the claim, even if a footnote proves the claim to come from elsewhere. That would jeopardize WP's NPOV policy. WP:NPOV guidelines clearly state that in such occasion, one must explicitly attribute the phrase to its source, as here is done, but then it must also very closely follow that source (hence a close translation with in footnote the French-language quote). In cases where there are other sources expressing a different point of view, these can be mentioned (if notable); but no such 'other', relativating, POV can be found. Thus Vb just wants to falsify the report, and such was actually done by Marskell (even "attributing" something to the report, that its authors express to have been widely known before even the survey had started, while entirely wiping the conclusions of the report: both the apparent one from its introduction and the major one on the consequences for the future; see proof on the talk page of Belgium, in the section about this ridiculous new FAR).

Keep FARring till everyone runs away and hand the article to the extremist POV Vbs, will make all serious authors, and finally readers, run away from WP altogether. A FAR must be the judging of the intrinsic qualities of an article, not an instrument of POV-pushers. Apart from one phrase called 'bizarre' by Marskell (once again see the talk page section about this FAR), of which the 'bizarre' aspect escapes me, there is no discussion whatsoever regarding the quality. This FAR is utterly misplaced, especially as this is not like having a bunch of people arguing on reducing POV or on a need to attain NPOV; in fact the only logical and reasonable arguments that have been presented, prove this article to be highly NPOV, and many "suggestions that have been proposed in the past" to be clear breaches of it: all even very farfetched suggestions of breaches that might convince a few people, had been modified before the FA status was granted by the just closed FAR.

Any "compromise" between WP:NPOV and POV formulations or omissions for POV reasons, is a very clear breach of WP:NPOV. A quote from that major WP policy: "the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral, that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject. Debates within topics are described, represented and characterized, but not engaged in." Furthermore, "The principles upon which these policies are based are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus." Hence this repeated FAR to obtain the unacceptable? It was removed, and then unduly reopened. Cancel it. (Casliber's demand on the talk page section, to remove FA and require consensus before it could regain FA status, directly violates forementioned WP:NPOV policy; SandyGeorgia did not appear to be eager in supporting another FAR, and neither was Marskell. And the article should not become FAR material within many months, rather years: One can maintain standards by improving new additions. I had accused Vb of trolling behaviour by starting the same discussions over and over again in other sections, when he found no support; do not keep feeding Vb.)

— SomeHuman 17 Jul 2007 16:47–19:23 (UTC)

• Comment. Felipe, please follow instruction number 6 at the top of WP:FAR, notify all relevant parties, and leave a record here. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is POV (1d). Marskell 09:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Other FA criteria concern is "well writtern" (1a) and "edit war" (1e). Vb 08:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I have doubts about the style of the following paragraph:

"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 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, though not before 1967 was an official Dutch version of the Constitution accepted.[13]"

The sentences should be cut in pieces. I have tried to inprove those sentences by myself but was all the time reverted the watchdog behaviour of User:SomeHuman makes the article very difficult to edit.

The table

is following Marskell's words "gibberish" and is too detailed to stands here.

The wording "The Federal State retains a considerable "common heritage"" is POV. I know it is a citation of the federal goverment homepage but it should be rewritten (as suggested by Marskell) in order to be less POVed.

Vb 08:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps people might have a look through the edit history, how exactly you have tried to "improve" that sentence on political history. The watchdog keeps NPOV and reasonably good prose, against fanatics: What could be POV about the "common heritage"? It's a simple fact, and whose POV into what direction, could it be? Pro or anti what, contested by whom? Oh yeah, by Vb who keeps shouting POV POV POVPOVPOV against all reason.
It is you, Vb, who tries to force your extreme POV into the article over and over again, and who keeps bringing up the same things you do not like at multiple places (which is trolling), now showing that sentence and the table even here. "Too detailed"? No Vb: it shows the constitutionally defined "language areas" from which all the regions and communities of Belgium are derived, and the related 'facilities' for speakers of a different national language. It may help people to understand the system of Belgium. And you want people to think that the Flemings (all or most extremists of course) have caused an incomprehensible lunatic and overly complex situation in Belgium. For your POV the table must become mutilated. For NPOV the table must keep showing Belgium.
And as I have clearly proven Marskell to have been editing the article Belgium in a very POV way during a few days (see talk page of Belgium), including a deliberate falsification of a quote from a referenced proper source by shoving in wordings that bring doubt about an entirely uncontested statement and fact, I cannot believe that same Marskell taking part at this ridiculous repeated FAR. In case this FAR is further abused to fight WP:NPOV by gathering 'consensus' to revoke FA until the watchdog gives in as he already has been doing far more than is reasonable by WP standards, so as to have solely your POV about "Belgium" depicted, I think Marskell's adminship should come under scrutiny: the NPOV policy mustnot bow for other guidelines or consensus (which only needs about four people who say that they agree) and WP:NPOV states so very clearly. — SomeHuman 25 Jul 2007 17:06 (UTC)

You have proven nothing of the sort. I have absolutely no POV on this. When I say that the table is gibberish, it's because I literally don't know what it's trying to say—that's not POV. I made sixty-odd edits to improve the prose. Any errors I made were typos, and given the state of some of the prose when I started, a couple of typos is a small price. I have no intention of closing this review, because I don't want to deal with your lack of AGF. The article is still broadly within criteria, incidentally. What you two need is dispute resolution, not FAR. Marskell 14:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear SomeHuman, I have no intention to prove that the Flemings (all or most extremists of course) have caused an incomprehensible lunatic and overly complex situation in Belgium because from my POV this is simply false: this situation is not lunatic nor overly complex and is not due to the Flemings only. I really just want to keep the article NPOV and understandable for foreigners. I am not suprised that Marskell does not understand the table above because there are much too many concepts in it which need explanations. I understand the table but because of my knowledge of Belgium not because of the table. I think it must be simplified. You have to think about what is the message of the table and how to explain it in a simple way before publishing it on WP. I think this message is quite obscure and should be simply skipped in this general article. Please convince me and Marskell of the opposite. With respect to the sentences of the history, my critic is the following: 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 played a strong role. Too many things are mixed in one sentence only. The 19th century oligarchy is a concept which has only a few to do with World War II and the role of the trade unions in Belgium. My critic is similar for the second sentence: 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, though not before 1967 was an official Dutch version of the Constitution accepted. The official character of the French language in the 19th century has also few in common with the 1967 Dutch version of the constitution. I therefore simply suggest to split both sentences in two. When I did it you accused me of introduciong my POV, so I ask you to do it yourself so that a NPOV can be reached. In my opinion and in Marskell's "common heritage" has a POV taste because it assumes the "Belgique de Papa" is dead which may be true but is an opinion. Changing this wording is not difficult and Marskell did it in the past (being reverted by SomeHuman). Vb 17:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any idea about what POV and NPOV mean? The term "Belgique de Papa", dead or alive, is POV; that the federal level has a good deal of heritage common to Flemings and Walloons from its unitary time, is a simple fact that is shown by the important domains (to which the 'common heritage' phrase is the intro). Your idea that the "Belgique de Papa" might not be dead, is ridiculous POV: Belgium is a regionalized and no longer unitary state, the article mustnot pretend that such may not quite be the case. That is not an opinion but the Constitution (which was modified not like you wanted to present as a one-shot recent change instead of the series of modifications spread over several decades), and it is daily life. But the 'common heritage' still being important, on the contrary, means that unitary aspects are not as completely obliterated as the modern emphasis on regions might suggest: it makes clear that Belgium is not a confederal state, though some would prefer that. The article sticks with what Belgium is. And this is not the place to discuss your problems. If you think something in the article is 'POV' then find proper notable sources that corroborate whatever opinion you feel not sufficiently depicted, and only then discuss it on the article's talk page; WP is not a forum for your highly personal opinions. — SomeHuman 01 Aug 2007 23:51 (UTC)

Please don't get once again insulting. Of course I know what POV and NPOV mean. I also agree with the fact that Belgium is a regionalized and no longer unitary state and this point is clearly made clear in this article. However the term heritage suggest someone is dead. I wanted to stress how the word heritage implies a POV by translating it in the very POVed way: the "Belgique de papa" is dead. I want to underline that the choice of the word "heritage" is biased and should be made clearer or more neutral (as did Marskell before getting reversed). Vb 08:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The term could only, and still arguably, be POV, for someone who does not accept that the "Belgique de papa" is dead. Such imaginary person should then declare war to Belgium, the real country that survives, instead of to me. — SomeHuman 05 Aug 2007 03:22 (UTC) P.S. For those less familiar with that phrase, it denotes the unitary (and mainly also the French-language dominated) Belgium. Even this work only asks whether the taboo question 'did the Belgique à papa survive?' had ever been raised, that is shortly after the 1970 constitutional change. Meanwhile there were three more constitutional changes amongst which the creation of the regions in 1980. From that time onwards, the question was no longer "taboo" and no "totem" either, but simply ridiculous, and thus this French-language source calls the old phrase "part of our collective memory". That is R.I.P. There are only aspects that survived (Belgium was not demolished), hence the 'common heritage'. May I point out that a heritage is normally considered a valuable thing, not something to be ashamed for (in this particular context: at least not for the aspects that form that 'common heritage'). — SomeHuman 05 Aug 2007 03:39 (UTC)

• Comment. I am not in favor of delisting an article because of a content dispute between two people only. Please clean up or remove that table; it is gibberish and unintelligible to someone not familiar with Belgium. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sandy, I utterly agree with you about the table. Please have a look at Talk:Belgium#Linguistic_regions_table for a simplified version of the table.Vb 10:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Vb might just as well obliterate the last seven columns or try to stick these too in a single column, then the table would be even a lot more simple, and not present any information at all. Sandy, instead of eliminating, I realized that the presentation was too confusing because one did not know where to begin reading the table. It's a basic cross-grid table and it just now became visually presented the way that is normally done (headers on the left and headers on top of the cross grid, without the needless and confusing header on top of the headers on the left which firstmentioned might just as well appeared a left-header to the headers on top [yes, that even sounds confusing here]). The column groups are now also better distinguished by thicker border lines between them, and unneeded horizontal borders are gone.
Furthermore, I moved the table up, towards what is explained by it; thus reading the text and then seeing the table makes both much more comprehensible. The two short paragraphs that used to be on top of the table (but actually belong underneath the mentioning of 4 language areas (where) and the naming of the 3 levels of government (by whom) and the table showing where, for whom, and by whom these interact), are now distinguished from the paragraphs describing the competences of each level, by a subtitle 'Competences' (which also helps to immediately see what is meant by the phrase in the top right corner of the table). The result is that Belgium's subdivisions are properly described; if that would still be gibberish, the error is not made by the article. — SomeHuman 05 Aug 2007 02:31 (UTC)

I think the table is not better now but I read this so many time in the past that I am far from objective about this. The question about "heritage": The objective of this paragraph is to express what are the competences of the federal Belgian government not to express any opinion about them. The competences of the fed gov are what they are. Nobody need to say here where they stamms from. This has been done in the section history. Here a perfectly neutral tone must be used. It is simple to do, Marskell did it in the past but any sentence phrased by SomeHuman must be considered as perfect and may not be edited. Vb 14:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment From a casual (ie 10 minute) view, the level of blue links seem overly dense. BC, Romans, province, Spanish, independent, Catholic, trade unions, Allied, political parties, engineer, soft drug usage. And others. The sentence "Belgium is well known for its cuisine", well what country would not make that claim. That said 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 02:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ceoil, it is difficult to draw a line between over- and under-linked. This article has made the choice to link a bit too many names. If you feel it is overlinked please be bold and remove some links. About the sentence "Belgium is well known for its cuisine", it would be a ridiculous sentence without explanation and references. However the article explains why: because it has many star restaurants (according to Michelin) because many typical dishes are internationaly reknowned (biers, chocolates and others). Vb 13:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: For an article on a country with such complex linguistic and cultural relationships, this article has remained surprisingly neutral, unlike other controversial articles that have come up on FAR recently ;-). I guess the two main editors here see the details differently, but it does not seem to have a major POV (1d) problem. However it does have criterion 1a problems.

• An anglophone copyeditor is needed to fix the prose. For example, the word "competence" is used wrongly in this article due to the fact that it is a false friend or faux amis. In French, compétence means autorité (authority) or pouvoir (power), while in English, "competence" means possessing the skills, knowledge, or qualifications. Another example: the clause "Based on the four in 1962–63 circumscribed language areas,.." does not make sense. If you will permit me, I will try to fix some of these.
• The table really does need to be fixed or changed because it is not understandable.
• In the drawing showing the three language communities, the Brussels area is shown in a mix of red/grey. What does that mean? There should be legend with a definition of this colour. Also rather than having three pictures, why not use one picture with three or four colours (plus a legend)?

Another point not related to FA criteria is that I expected some content describing the difficult situation between the two communities. I saw the RTBF broadcast of the fake secession of Flanders so the subject must be important to the country. --RelHistBuff 13:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I have started working on the text and I just realise that a lot of work needs to be done. I just noticed that the article has a mix of British and American spelling. I will use British, unless there are any objections? --RelHistBuff 18:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned problems with the prose and with some of the references on the last FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

To RelHistBuff: Not understanding the table and wondering about the three pictures and the colours, is probably caused by not reading the article as a reader looking for information and is closely related to not understanding "Based on the four in 1962–63 circumscribed language areas". Those areas form the exact geographical boundaries of the 'Regions' and 'Communities' and how these coincide or overlap. As the matter is complex, one cannot expect everyone to fully grasp it immediately. Most Belgians still have great difficulties after having lived through it. The section does explain the necessary details as much as can be shown in this article, and mustnot be 'simplified' precisely because of your concern "describing the difficult situation between the two communities": the complexity is Belgium, a compromise (as mentioned in the section) that is intended to allow the two major communities to live peacefully in one country — and perhaps in one WP. The controverse is furthermore shown in many other sections (lead, history, politics, language, culture, ...) and cannot stand getting more weight: Belgium is much more than your apparent interest, and in a general article this controverse does not allow depicting whatever 'actuality' happens to attract attention this season.
The so-called 'American' spelling is actually correct British spelling as still used by scolars and in many international publications: The OED is for Belgium and many other countries, also in the very first English lessons, the reference work; not The Times or popular newspapers. Hence this article requires minimize and organized. See the WP article on American and British English spelling differences and for instance this; to my knowledge, the article was consistent.
I'm still going over your good work. Please do not feel bad about a few modifications I'm making: the edit comments should largely explain why these are needed. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 09 Aug 2007 21:24 (UTC)

To SandyGeorgia: When? Before or after Markell's copyediting? And you had found the references good enough (in balance with what they reference, there should be a limit somewhere). Close this FAR war, because that is what it is: the article was FA after the very recent FAR and has not suffered since. Yours cordially — SomeHuman 09 Aug 2007 21:24 (UTC)

The spelling is not a big issue, so if it is kept consistently using the Oxford standard, no problem. But parts of the article are truly incomprehensible. The clause "Based on the four in 1962–63 circumscribed language areas" does not make sense. What happened in 1962-63? Do you mean the four areas as defined in 1962-63? Concerning the justification that the prose is as it is precisely because the situation is complex, this is not an acceptable defence. The prose (and grammar) needs improvement, full stop. I will continue to help, but as it stands the article fails on criterion 1a and does not represent our best work. --RelHistBuff 22:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I gave it a shot and it still does not look good enough. Here are some of the remaining problems from my perspective.

• The "Communites and regions" needs fixing, in particular, the incomprehensible clause and the table. In my opinion the table should be simply removed. It is confusing and does not add enough info for the interest of a general reader of the enyclopaedia.
• WP:MOSLINKS problems. I tried to clean it up by removing general wikilinks, but there are are also many duplications.
• The lead which should summarise the article contains items that are not described in the main sections ("the battlefield of Europe" and "the cockpit of Europe")
• Most importantly, prose needs improvement and a copyedit is needed.

It would be better if more people join in to help, but perhaps some have been scared off because of reverts. I hate to see this one go, but for the above reasons (specifically criterion 1a), I vote Remove. I will gladly change my vote if I see improvements before the end of this FARC. --RelHistBuff 11:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Just one more point. It would be good that the main editors take a look at the version that passed FAC. That version is clear and understandable, a very nice read. Perhaps if the editors will update the current version with the old version in mind, then this article will easily pass this review. --RelHistBuff 15:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The "1962-63" clause has been altered, and the table as well (perhaps clearer for those who have difficulties in understanding, with the extra 'See also' at top of its section and the modified sentence immediately following the table). I'm not sure whether you checked those before your latest comment here. The article version you just state to be a proper sample, had "the Cockpit of Europe" in the lead and nowhere else either (and without a reference which became requested like most others at a later time).

Whereas I strongly agree on removing the links from 'fifth century' and 'eighth century', and can see reason for doing so with 'Latin', 'independent', 'parliament', 'chemical', 'petroleum', 'subsidized', for this country the link does not seem excessive in the "the country has a comparatively high number of processions".

For feudal, oligarchy, nobility, bourgeoisie, plebiscite, Blitzkrieg (which should be capitalized in the article), bicameral, Liberals, nationalist, dioxin, vocabulary, semantic, dialects, census, cartographer, anatomist, herbalist, mathematician, chemist, engineer, romantic, expressionist, surrealist, cycling, motocross, one can find only a far too incomplete explanation in a dictionary. Even that is certainly not possible for many other links that you removed and which cannot be assumed to be well understood by all readers, especially from other cultures: unitary state, proportional voting, compulsory voting, voter turnout, head of state, Prime Minister, political parties, political centre, right-wing,social conservative, Christian Democrats, Socialists (which links to 'Social democracy'), left-wing, environmental, per capita, open economy, "customs and currency union" (the first linking to 'customs union'), population density, regional language, postsecondary education, applied and pure science (the first linking to 'applied science'), Big Bang theory, Nobel Prize in literature, Formula One World Championship. Your removal of all four links from "Romanesque, Gothic, Renaissance and Baroque architecture" (each linking like the latter to '<term> architecture') appears to me as the work of a fanatic or a vandal, and removing it from saxophone in the sentence mentioning the inventor of the instrument is hardly sensible.

The phrase: "regionalisation of the unitary state led to a three-tiered federation: federal, ..." had highly specific links chosen to allow the interested reader to find more information pertinent to the topic of that section. That is the strength of an electronic encyclopaedia. The practical use for readers is far more important than your aversion of blue links and (apart from the few mentioned first) is not what is can be called overdoing. The existence of the linked articles on Wikipedia would not be justified, if the links to them would not be proper. There are other 'difficult' words in the article that can do and already did without a link, as the dictionary definition suffices. With a high number of blue links, readers automatically keep on reading unless a term catches them; it is not at all like an article with ten lines of text and only two links to articles that add little to already commonly understood words. It is not unusual and never considered disturbing to link units for properties having different units in the world like this: "3 °C (37 °F), and highest in July at 18 °C (64 °F). The average precipitation per month varies between 54 millimetres (2.1 in)" (and those on abbreviations can even be repeated when used further on). For the many readers who do not natively speak English, abbreviations like GNP, GDP, OECD are rarely understood without a link - hell, I hadn't recognized the latter two (OECD was linked earlier but only in a footnote, by me!). That proper article version that had passed FAC, had most of the links that you just removed, fully active.

Without the links, the article became unintelligable to readers with another cultural background than you or me (as Westerners) and, considering quite a few of the terms from which you removed links, to most readers of the same background with a slighly less profound and widely oriented education.

— SomeHuman 10 Aug 2007 18:30–18:37 (UTC)

I tried to remove wikilinks that are not directly related to the subject and pointed to general topics on other matters. However, I admit that the decision-making is rather subjective, so if you would like to restore some links, please go ahead. But it would be good to remove duplications. --RelHistBuff 22:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.